An observational study of quality of motion in the aging cervical spine: sequence of segmental contributions in dynamic fluoroscopy recordings.

BACKGROUND: The term 'physiological motion of the spine' is commonly used although no proper definition exists. Previous work has revealed a consistent sequence of cervical segmental contributions in 80-90% of young healthy individuals. Age has been shown to be associated with a decreased quantity of motion. Therefore, it is of interest to study whether this sequence persists throughout aging. The aim of this prospective cohort study is to investigate if the consistent sequence of cervical segmental contributions in young asymptomatic individuals remains present in elderly asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, dynamic flexion to extension cinematographic recordings of the cervical spine were made in asymptomatic individuals aged 55-70 years old. Individuals without neck pain and without severe degenerative changes were included. Two recordings were made in each individual with a 2-to-4-week interval (T1 and T2). Segmental rotation of each individual segment between C4 and C7 was calculated to determine the sequence of segmental contributions. Secondary outcomes were segmental range of motion (sRoM) and sagittal alignment. RESULTS: Ten individuals, with an average age of 61 years, were included. The predefined consistent sequence of segmental contributions was found in 10% of the individuals at T1 and 0% at T2. sRoM and total range of motion (tRoM) were low in all participants. There was no statistically significant correlation between sagittal alignment, degeneration and sRoM in the respective segments, nor between cervical lordosis and tRoM. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that aging is associated with loss of the consistent motion pattern that was observed in young asymptomatic individuals. The altered contribution of the cervical segments during extension did not appear to be correlated to the degree of degeneration or sagittal alignment. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT04222777, registered 10.01.2020.

A randomized controlled trial with extended long-term follow-up: Quality of cervical spine motion after anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) or anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA).

Introduction: In previous research, a consistent sequence of segmental contributions during dynamic extension X-rays of the cervical spine was observed in 80-90% of healthy participants. Research question: To investigate whether this previously defined 'normal' sequence of segmental contributions was present in patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) or anterior cervical discectomy (ACD). Materials & methods: A randomized controlled trial with extended follow-up was conducted. Patients with single level cervical degenerative radiculopathy with a surgical indication were included and randomized. Dynamic X-ray recordings were made before surgery, one-year post-operative, and at long term follow-up. Results: A total of 27 patients were included, three in an ACDA pilot group and 24 were randomized to receive ACDA (N = 12) or ACD (N = 12). A total of 20 patients were available for follow-up. Preoperatively, 16.7% of patients in the ACDA group and 58.3% of patients in the ACD group showed a normal sequence. One-year post-operative, 66.7% showed a normal sequence in the ACDA group versus 30.0% in the ACD group (p = 0.036). After an average of 11-years follow-up, a normal sequence was observed in 9.1% of patients in the ACDA group and in none of the patients in the ACD group (p = 0.588). Discussion & conclusion: These findings suggest that while ACDA can restore and preserve a normal sequence of segmental contributions in the short term, this effect is not maintained in the long term. Throughout the process of ageing, not only the quantity, but also the quality of motion changes.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Epidural Analgesia for Pain Relief After Lumbar Interlaminar Decompressive Spine Surgery: The RAPID trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: If an intraoperative single bolus of epidural bupivacaine can result in less postoperative pain following lumbar spinal decompression surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adequate postoperative pain management following lumbar spinal decompression surgery is important, as it will lead to early mobilization, less complications, and a shorter hospital stay. Opioid consumption should be limited due to their frequently accompanied side effects and their addictive nature. During the final phase of lumbar decompression surgery, the epidural space becomes easily accessible. This might be an ideal moment for surgeons to administer an epidural bolus of analgesia as a safe and effective method for postoperative pain relief. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this trial, we compared a single intraoperative bolus of epidural analgesia using bupivacaine 0.25% to placebo (NaCl 0.9%) and its effect on postoperative pain following lumbar spinal decompression surgery. The primary outcome was the difference in Numeric (Pain) Rating Scale between the intervention and placebo groups during the first 48 hours after surgery. RESULTS: Both the intervention group and the placebo group consisted of 20 randomized patients (N=40). Statistically significant lower mean Numeric (Pain) Rating Scale pain scores were observed in the intervention group in comparison with the control group (main effect group: -2.35±0.77, P =0.004). The average pain score was lower in the intervention group at all postoperative time points. No study-related complications occurred. CONCLUSION: This randomized controlled trial shows that administrating a bolus of intraoperative epidural bupivacaine is a safe and effective method for reducing early postoperative pain following lumbar decompression surgery.

Referrals, Symptoms and Treatment of Patients Referred to a Secondary Spine Centre-How Can We Help?

INTRODUCTION: Spinal disorders are amongst the conditions with the highest burden of disease. To limit the increase of healthcare-related costs in the ageing population, the selection of different types of care for patients with spinal disorders should be optimized. The first step is to investigate the characteristics of these patients and the relationship with treatment. RESEARCH QUESTION: The primary aim of this study was to provide insights in the characteristics, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of patients referred to a specialized spinal health care centre. The secondary aim was to perform an in-depth analysis of resource utilization for a representative subgroup of patients. METHODS: This study describes the characteristics of 4855 patients referred to a secondary spine centre. Moreover, an extensive analysis of a representative subgroup of patients (~20%) is performed. RESULTS: The mean age was 58.1, 56% of patients were female, and the mean BMI was 28. In addition, 28% of patients used opioids. Mean self-reported health status was 53.3 (EuroQol 5D Visual Analogue Scale), and pain ranged from 5.8 to 6.7 (Visual Analogue Scale neck/back/arm/leg). Additional imaging was received by 67.7% of patients. Surgical treatment was indicated for 4.9% of patients. The majority (83%) of non-surgically treated patients received out-of-hospital treatment; 25% of patients received no additional imaging or in-hospital treatment. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of patients received non-surgical treatments. We observed that ~10% of patients did not receive in-hospital imaging or treatment and had acceptable or good questionnaire scores at the time of referral. These findings suggest that there is potential for improvement in efficacy of referral, diagnosis, and treatment. Future studies should aim to develop an evidence base for improved patient selection for clinical pathways. The efficacy of chosen treatments requires investigation of large cohorts.

Predicting Survival in Patients Presenting With Spinal Epidural Metastases: The Limburg Spinal Metastasis Score.

BACKGROUND: Patients with spinal epidural metastases (SEM) often experience a reduction in ambulatory status and, thus, the quality of life. Predicting which patients will benefit from a surgical intervention remains a challenge. Life expectancy is an essential factor to be considered in surgical decision-making, although not the only one. Prediction models can add value in surgical decision-making. The goal of this study was to develop and internally validate a novel model (Limburg spinal metastases score [LSMS]) and compare the predictive value with 2 commonly used models: modified Bauer score and Oswestry Spinal Risk Index (OSRI). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 144 consecutive patients who underwent surgical decompression for SEM in our centers between November 2006 and December 2020. Clinical and surgical parameters were evaluated. The novel prediction model was based on multivariate analysis and was internally validated. External validation of the 2 most commonly used prediction models was performed. RESULTS: The median survival was 17 months, 55.7% of the immobile patients regained ambulation postoperatively. In 50 patients (34.7%), at least 1 complication occurred within 30 days after surgery. The LSMS consists of 4 parameters: primary tumor type, Karnofsky performance score, presence of visceral metastases, and presence of multiple spinal metastases. Bootstrap internal validation of the model developed on this cohort yielded an optimism-corrected c-statistic of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.80). The c-statistic of the OSRI score and the Bauer score was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.64-0.74) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.62-0.72), respectively. CONCLUSION: The LSMS consists of 4 parameters to assist surgical decision-making for patients with SEM. The score is easy to use and appears more accurate in our population in comparison with previous existing models. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A novel prediction model was developed to aid in surgical decision-making for patients with spinal epidural metastases.

Double-center observational study of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion for sacroiliac joint dysfunction: one-year results.

BACKGROUND: For a substantial part of patients with chronic low back pain, the origin is located in the sacroiliac joint (SIJ). Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MISJF) is increasingly being implemented as a treatment option in SIJ dysfunction. Despite remaining controversy, evidence continues to increase. This study evaluates the clinical results and safety of MISJF in a double-center consecutive case series in patients with SIJ dysfunction over a one-year observation period. METHODS: SIJ complaints were diagnosed after history taking, physical examination and least a 50% reduction of SIJ pain 30-60 min following image-guided injection. Primary outcome measures were patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs), consisting of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score and EuroQol 5-dimensions 3-levels (EQ-5D-3L). Patients' perspectives on the effects of surgery were collected through questionnaires. Secondary outcome measures were implant positioning and (serious) adverse events ((S)AE's). RESULTS: A total of 29 patients were included. In 44.8% of patients, SIJ dysfunction was of postpartum origin. The mean VAS-pain score improved from 7.83 (± 1.71) to 4.97 (± 2.63) postoperatively (p < 0.001). EQ-5D-3L score improved from 0.266 (± 0.129) to 0.499 (± 0.260) postoperatively (p < 0.001). Opioid consumption decreased from 44.8 to 24.1% postoperatively (p = 0.026). In 13.7% of patients, an (S)AE occurred. CONCLUSION: MISJF appears to be an effective and safe procedure in this cohort. Statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in pain and quality of life were observed one-year postoperatively. Future studies should focus on the long-term outcomes to further evaluate the safety and effectiveness of MISJF.

Motion analysis in patients with postpartum sacroiliac joint dysfunction: A cross-sectional case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction are limited in daily life activities such as gait, climbing stairs and rising from a chair. It is well known that individuals with chronic low back pain have impaired balance compared to healthy individuals. This cross-sectional case-control study aims to investigate spatiotemporal parameters, center of pressure and mass, pelvic angles and other joint angles in patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction in comparison with healthy controls. METHODS: Motion analysis existed of three tasks: (1) normal gait, (2) single-leg-stance, and (3) sit-to-stance. Spatiotemporal parameters, center of pressure, pelvic angles and other joint angles were measured using a twelve-camera, three-dimensional motion capture system and ground reaction force platforms. FINDINGS: Thirty subjects were recruited for this study; ten patients, ten matched controls and ten healthy student controls. For gait, patients had a lower cadence, longer double support phase, shorter step length and slower walking speed than controls. For single-leg-stance, patients had a smaller hip angle of the risen leg than controls. Also, variability in center of pressure was larger in patients. For sit-to-stance, the total time to perform the task was almost doubled for patients compared to controls. INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrates that patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction have an impaired gait, more balance problems during standing and standing up compared to healthy controls. This novel information assists to further comprehend the pathology and disease burden of sacroiliac joint dysfunction, in addition, it may allow us to evaluate the effect of current therapies.

Clinical adjacent segment pathology after anterior cervical discectomy, with and without fusion, for cervical degenerative disc disease: A single center retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up.

Introduction: Clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP) continues to be a cause of concern after anterior surgical treatment for single- or multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). The current literature reports inconsistent incidence rates and contended risk factors in the development of CASP. Research question: The aim is to determine the incidence of additional CASP-related surgeries after anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) or without fusion (ACD) for CDDD. Secondary outcomes include risk factors for the development of CASP and long-term clinical outcomes. Materials & methods: This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study with a long-term follow up. Patients undergoing ACD(F) for CDDD between January 2012 and December 2019 were included. Results: A total of 601 patients were included, with an average follow-up period of 5.0 years. Most patients underwent ACDF with stand-alone cages (87.7%). CASP developed in 58 (9.7%) patients, 41 (70.7%) of which required additional adjacent level surgery. ACD significantly accelerated the development of CASP. The C2-C7 Cobb angle appeared less lordotic upon early post-operative imaging in ACDF patients that later-on developed CASP. Baseline degeneration at the index level and adjacent levels was not significantly different between patients with and without CASP. Discussion & conclusion: In this retrospective cohort, we observe a relatively low rate of additional surgery for CASP in ACDF with stand-alone cages. We suggest that surgical technique, fusion, segmental kyphosis and natural degeneration play a multifactorial role in the development of CASP. Complication rates were low and clinical outcomes were similar for all techniques used.

Research protocol: Cervical Arthroplasty Cost Effectiveness Study (CACES): economic evaluation of anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) in the surgical treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease - a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: To date, there is no consensus on which anterior surgical technique is more cost-effective in treating cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). The most commonly used surgical treatment for patients with single- or multi-level symptomatic CDDD is anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF). However, new complaints of radiculopathy and/or myelopathy commonly develop at adjacent levels, also known as clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP). The extent to which kinematics, surgery-induced fusion, natural history, and progression of disease play a role in the development of CASP remains unclear. Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) is another treatment option that is thought to reduce the incidence of CASP by preserving motion in the operated segment. While ACDA is often discouraged, as the implant costs are higher while the clinical outcomes are similar to ACDF, preventing CASP might be a reason for ACDA to be a more cost-effective technique in the long term. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this randomized controlled trial, patients will be randomized to receive ACDF or ACDA in a 1:1 ratio. Adult patients with single- or multi-level CDDD and symptoms of radiculopathy and/or myelopathy will be included. The primary outcome is cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of both techniques from a healthcare and societal perspective. Secondary objectives are the differences in clinical and radiological outcomes between the two techniques, as well as the qualitative process surrounding anterior decompression surgery. All outcomes will be measured at baseline and every 6 months until 4 years post-surgery. DISCUSSION: High-quality evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of both ACDA and ACDF is lacking; to date, there are no prospective trials from a societal perspective. Considering the aging of the population and the rising healthcare costs, there is an urgent need for a solid clinical cost-effectiveness trial addressing this question. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04623593. Registered on 29 September 2020.

A Systematic Review on Neurological Outcomes for Cervical Degenerative Myelopathy After Anterior Decompression Surgery: Motion Preservation vs Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Although it is well established that surgically treated patients with cervical degenerative myelopathy (CDM) improve irrespective of the anterior decompression technique used, no consensus exists on what technique is superior in terms of neurological recovery. A general concern exists that anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) leads to less favorable outcomes in CDM due to microtrauma caused by preserved mobility. It is remarkable that current literature mainly uses pain scores to assess clinical outcomes after anterior decompression surgery, especially considering that pain may not be the most relevant outcome for CDM. This systematic review evaluated the literature concerning neurological outcomes in patients with CDM treated with anterior decompression surgery and assessed by validated myelopathy scores. METHODS: Systematic searches were carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. Prospective studies were included when patients with isolated CDM were treated with anterior decompression surgery, and a validated myelopathy outcome score was used. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included from the 16,032 identified studies. All studies used the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) outcome score and showed improvement for all anterior techniques. The mean improvement in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) was 4.80 and 3.64 for the modified JOA and JOA outcome scores, respectively. The JOA for ACDA showed a mean improvement of 5.51. The overall quality of the included articles was low to moderate according to the Cochrane tool. CONCLUSION: Neurological recovery of CDM is similar after all anterior decompression techniques, including ACDA when compared with ACDF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current literature gives no reason to dissuade the use of ACDA in cervical myelopathy.

Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion vs Conservative Management in Patients With Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is affected in 14% to 22% in individuals presenting with chronic low back or buttock pain. This percentage is even higher in patients who underwent lumbar fusion surgery: 32% to 42%. Currently, there is no standard treatment or surgical indication for SIJ dysfunction. When patients do not respond well to nonsurgical treatment, minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MISJF) seems to be a reasonable option. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the current literature on the effectiveness of MISJF compared to conservative management in patients with SIJ dysfunction. METHODS: A systematic search of health-care databases was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective and retrospective comparative cohort studies that compared MISJF with conservative management. Primary outcome measures were pain, disability, and patient satisfaction measured by patient-reported outcome measures. Secondary outcomes were adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, financial benefits, and costs. RESULTS: Two RCTs and one retrospective cohort study were included comparing MISJF and conservative management with regard to pain and disability outcome, encompassing 388 patients (207 conservative and 181 surgical). In a pooled mean difference analysis, MISJF demonstrated greater reduction in visual analog scale-pain score compared to conservative management: -37.03 points (95%CI [-43.91, -30.15], P < 0.001). Moreover, MISJF was associated with a greater reduction in Oswestry Disability Index outcome: -21.14 points (95% CI [-24.93, -17.35], P < 0.001). AEs were low among the study groups and comparable across the included studies. One cost-effectiveness analysis was also included and reported that MISJF is more cost-effective than conservative management.001). AEs were low among the study groups and comparable across the included studies. One cost-effectiveness analysis was also included and reported that MISJF is more cost-effective than conservative management. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that MISJF, using cannulated triangular, titanium implants, is more effective and cost-effective than conservative management in reducing pain and disability in patients with SIJ dysfunction. Further well-powered, independent research is needed to improve the overall evidence.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dynamic bracing versus standard care alone in patients suffering from osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: protocol for a multicentre, two-armed, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with osteoporosis may suffer from a fracture after minimal trauma. Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) are among the most common fractures, often leading to substantial pain. There is a need for evidence-based conservative treatment to aid in the management of OVCFs. The objective of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dynamic bracing in addition to standard care for improving quality of life (QoL) in patients suffering from an OVCF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Ninety-eight postmenopausal women from two academic and four community hospitals with a recent symptomatic thoracolumbar OVCF will be randomised into either the standard care or dynamic bracing group. In the dynamic bracing group, the Spinova Osteo orthosis will be used in addition to standard care. Standard care comprises pain control with analgesics, physical therapy and osteoporosis medication. The primary outcome parameter is QoL 1 year after inclusion, as measured by the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO-41). Secondary outcome parameters are pain, pain medication used, functional disability, sagittal spinal alignment, recurrence rate of OVCFs and physical activity in daily life. A trial-based economic evaluation consisting of both cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis will be performed based on empirical data obtained in the RCT. A process evaluation will assess the feasibility of dynamic bracing. All outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Medical Ethics Committee, University Hospital Maastricht and Maastricht University (METC azM/UM) (NL74552.068.20/METC 20-055). Patients will be included only after verification of eligibility and obtaining written informed consent. Results will be disseminated via the Dutch National Osteoporosis Patient Society and via publications and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8746.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial on the effect of local analgesia for pain relief after minimal invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: the ARTEMIS study.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic lower back pain is a common report in the general population. A dysfunctional sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is estimated to be responsible for one in five patients with lower back pain. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MISJF) is a surgical procedure to treat SIJ dysfunction. During the procedure, the SIJ is stabilised by implants inserted percutaneously under fluoroscopy guidance. Postoperatively, patients often report a lot of pain, which contributes to patients taking high doses of painkillers (opioids for example,) and preventing early mobilisation. In several orthopaedic procedures, intraoperative infiltration of the wound bed results in decreased consumption of analgesics, earlier mobilisation and shorter hospitalisation time. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of intraoperative SIJ infiltration with analgesia in reducing postoperative pain after MISJF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a two-centre, prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial to determine whether SIJ infiltration with 1.5-5 cc bupivacaine 0.50% is superior to 1.5-5 cc placebo (NaCl 0.9%) in reducing postoperative pain in patients after MISJF, and to determine whether bupivacaine significantly reduces opioid use in the direct postoperative period. Patients will be randomised with 1:1 allocation for either bupivacaine (intervention) or placebo SIJ infiltration. Postoperative pain will be measured by the Visual Analogue Scale pain score at entry and exit recovery, 2, 4, 6, 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is the first trial that investigates the effectiveness of intraoperative SIJ infiltration with bupivacaine 0.50% in reducing postoperative pain after MISJF. If intraoperative SIJ infiltration with bupivacaine 0.50% proves to be effective, this might have important clinical implications, such as postoperative analgesics (opioids for example,) consumption, earlier mobilisation and potentially shorter hospitalisation time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL9151.

Intraoperative epidural analgesia for pain relief after lumbar decompressive spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: During lumbar decompressive spine surgery, the epidural space is easily accessible. This intraoperative situation allows surgeons to apply an epidural bolus of analgesia at the end of the surgical procedure. In literature, several papers about the methods and effectiveness of delivering local analgesia during lumbar decompressive spine surgery have been published. Research question: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to summaries the current literature on the effectiveness and safety of intraoperative epidural analgesia in lumbar decompressive surgery, delivered as a bolus. Material and method: A systematic search was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials or comparative cohort studies of patients aged 18 years or older who underwent decompressive lumbar spine surgery. Nonsteroidal epidural analgesia had to be administered as a bolus, intraoperatively, as an adjunct to standard analgesia therapy. Primary outcome measures were reduction in postoperative pain scores, analgesics consumption and length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were adverse events. Results: Eight studies evaluating the effectiveness of intraoperative epidural analgesia were included. Seven studies reported statistically significant reductions in postoperative VAS-pain scores. Six studies reported a statistically significant decrease in postoperative analgesics consumption. Four studies reported on the length of hospital stay, with no statistically significant difference between study groups. Discussion and conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that additional intraoperative epidural nonsteroidal analgesia, delivered as a bolus, can reduce postoperative pain and postoperative analgesics consumption in patients undergoing decompressive spinal surgery. Further well-powered research is needed to bolster the evidence.

Two-Nation Comparison of Classification and Treatment of Subaxial Cervical Spine Fractures: An Internet-Based Multicenter Study Among Spine Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: To date, no evidence-based treatment algorithm is available for fractures of the subaxial spine. The aim of the present study was to assess and compare the management strategy for traumatic subaxial fractures among German and Dutch spine surgeons. METHODS: In our web-based multicenter study, German and Dutch spine surgeons evaluated the computed tomography data of traumatic subaxial fractures (C3-C7). Supplementary case-specific information was provided. The fractures were classified using the AO spine classification. Next, 9 questions concerning the treatment algorithm were evaluated. Data were analyzed using SPSS. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: Ten surgeons (5/country) evaluated 31 cases (310 votes). The fractures were classified as AO type A in 37% (114 votes), type B in 50% (155 votes), and type C in 13% (41 votes). German spine surgeons had a lower threshold concerning the indication for surgical treatment (German, 94.2% vs. Netherlands, 58.1%; P < 0.05). A consensus was present for operative stabilization for type B and C injuries, but a discrepancy was found in the therapeutic algorithm for type A fractures. The most significant difference was seen in the treatment of type A2 and A3 fractures (surgery for type A2/A3 fracture: German, 92.9% vs. Netherlands, 5.3%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: We found a consensus for the stabilization of AO type B and C fractures but country-specific differences in the treatment of type A fractures, especially for A2 and A3 fractures. Further evidence is necessary to ensure more consistent international treatment strategies.

Reliability and Agreement of Different Spine Fracture Classification Systems: An Independent Intraobserver and Interobserver Study.

OBJECTIVE: Currently, no spinal classification system has achieved universal acceptance. Therefore, it is important to choose a reliable classification within clinical practice. The objective of this study was to determine and compare the intraobserver and interobserver agreement of the Load Sharing Classification (LSC), the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System (TLICS), and the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System. METHODS: In this web-based intraobserver and interobserver study (www.spine.hostei.com), plain radiographs and computed tomographic scans of traumatic thoracolumbar fractures (T12-L2) were evaluated. By use of a questionnaire, fractures were classified according to the LSC, the TLICS, and the AOSpine classification. Data were analyzed with SPSS (Version 21, 76 Chicago, Illinois, USA). Intraobserver and interobserver agreement was determined by the Cohen κ. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: Data from 91 patients were classified twice by 7 board-certified spine surgeons. The intraobserver and interobserver reliability considering the LSC total score was noted as fair (intraobserver/interobserver reliability: κ = 0.26/0.22). Considering the resulting TLICS total score, a moderate intraobserver agreement (κ = 0.41) was noted, whereas the interobserver results presented only fair reliability (κ = 0.23). In contrast to the LSC and the TLICS, the AOSpine classification showed substantial agreement considering the fracture type (A;B;C) (intraobserver/interobserver reliability: κ = 0.71/0.61) and moderate agreement considering the fracture subtype (e.g., A0;A1;…;B1;…) (intraobserver/interobserver reliability: κ = 0.57/0.48). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the reliability of the AOSpine fracture classification is superior to the TLICS and the LSC. Therefore, this classification system could best be applied within clinical practice.

Radiological Prediction of Posttraumatic Kyphosis After Thoracolumbar Fracture.

OBJECTIVES: Classification methods that are currently being used for clinical decision making in thoracolumbar fractures, are limited by reproducibility and prognostic value. Additionally, they do not include kyphosis. As a posttraumatic kyphosis is related to persistent pain, it is of importance to determine a risk of posttraumatic kyphosis based on fracture type and patient characteristics. PURPOSE: To determine risk factors (AO classification, age, gender, localization) that may lead to progressive kyphosis after a thoracolumbar fracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective radiographic analysis of a consecutive patientcohort that presented in our clinic with a traumatic fracture of the thoracolumbar spine between 2004 and 2011. Cobb angle, Gardner angle, vertebral compression angle and anterior vertebral body compression were measured on plain radiographs, direct post-trauma and at follow-up. RESULTS: Age and localization are not significantly correlated, but there seems to be an increased risk of progression of kyphosis in age > 50 years and fractures localized at Th12 or L1. A3 type fractures are significantly more at risk for posttraumatic kyphosis compared to A1 and A2 type fractures. 30-50% of the A3 type fractures have an end Gardner angle and end vertebral compression angle of more than 20 degrees. CONCLUSION: AO-type A3 fractures appear to be at risk of progression of kyphosis. Localization at Th12-L1 and age above 50 years seem to be risk factors for significant posttraumatic kyphosis. These findings should be used in patient counseling and a meticulous evaluation by weekly radiographs is recommended to determine the treatment strategy of thoracolumbar fractures.

Two-Nation Comparison of Classification and Treatment of Thoracolumbar Fractures: An Internet-Based Multicenter Study Among Spine Surgeons.

STUDY DESIGN: Web-based multicenter study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess and compare the management strategy for traumatic thoracolumbar fractures between German and Dutch spine surgeons. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To date, there is no evidence-based treatment algorithm for thoracolumbar spine fractures, thereby an international controversy concerning optimal treatment exists. METHODS: In this web-based multicenter study (www.spine.hostei.com), computed tomography scans of traumatic thoracolumbar fractures (T12-L2) were evaluated by German and Dutch spine surgeons. Supplementary case-specific information such as age, sex, height, weight, neurological status, and injury mechanism were provided.By using a questionnaire, fractures were classified according to the AO-Magerl Classification, followed by 6 questions concerning the treatment algorithm. Data were analyzed using SPSS (Version 21, 76, Chicago, IL). The interobserver agreement was determined by using Cohen κ. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: Twelve surgeons (6 per country) evaluated each 91 cases. The fractures were classified as AO Type A in 82% (898 votes), Type B in 14% (150 votes), and Type C in 4% (44 votes). No significant difference concerning the AO Classification between German and Dutch spine surgeons was found. Overall German spine surgeons had a lower threshold concerning the indication for surgical treatment (Ger 87% vs. NL 30%; P < 0.05). There was a consensus about operative stabilization of AO Type B and C injuries and injuries with neurologic deficit, whereas a discrepancy in the therapeutic algorithm for AO Type A fractures was observed. This difference was most pronounced regarding the indication for posterior (Ger 96.6%; NL 41.2%; P < 0.05) and circumferential stabilization (Ger 53.4%; NL 0%; P < 0.05) for burst fractures. CONCLUSION: There is a consensus to stabilize AO Type B and C fractures, whereas country-specific differences in the treatment of Type A fractures, especially in case of burst fractures, occur. Prospective, controlled multicenter outcome studies may provide more evidence in optimal treatment for thoracolumbar fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.