Expert Opinion, Real-World Classification, and Decision-Making in Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures Without Neurologic Deficits?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVES: To compare decision-making between an expert panel and real-world spine surgeons in thoracolumbar burst fractures (TLBFs) without neurological deficits and analyze which factors influence surgical decision-making. METHODS: This study is a sub-analysis of a prospective observational study in TL fractures. Twenty two experts were asked to review 183 CT scans and recommend treatment for each fracture. The expert recommendation was based on radiographic review. RESULTS: Overall agreement between the expert panel and real-world surgeons regarding surgery was 63.2%. In 36.8% of cases, the expert panel recommended surgery that was not performed in real-world scenarios. Conversely, in cases where the expert panel recommended non-surgical treatment, only 38.6% received non-surgical treatment, while 61.4% underwent surgery. A separate analysis of A3 and A4 fractures revealed that expert panel recommended surgery for 30% of A3 injuries and 68% of A4 injuries. However, 61% of patients with both A3 and A4 fractures received surgery in the real world. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a 1% increase in certainty of PLC injury led to a 4% increase in surgery recommendation among the expert panel, while a .2% increase in the likelihood of receiving surgery in the real world. CONCLUSION: Surgical decision-making varied between the expert panel and real-world treating surgeons. Differences appear to be less evident in A3/A4 burst fractures making this specific group of fractures a real challenge independent of the level of expertise.

The Surgical Algorithm for the AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification System.

STUDY DESIGN: Global cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: To establish a surgical algorithm for sacral fractures based on the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) Spine Sacral Injury Classification System. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although the AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification has been validated across an international audience of surgeons, a consensus on a surgical algorithm for sacral fractures using the Sacral AO Spine Injury Score (Sacral AOSIS) has yet to be developed. METHODS: A survey was sent to general orthopedic surgeons, orthopedic spine surgeons, and neurosurgeons across the five AO spine regions of the world. Descriptions of controversial sacral injuries based on different fracture subtypes were given, and surgeons were asked whether the patient should undergo operative or nonoperative management. The results of the survey were used to create a surgical algorithm based on each subtype's sacral AOSIS. RESULTS: An international agreement of 70% was decided on by the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma experts to indicate a recommendation of initial operative intervention. Using this, sacral fracture subtypes of AOSIS 5 or greater were considered operative, while those with AOSIS 4 or less were generally nonoperative. For subtypes with an AOSIS of 3 or 4, if the sacral fracture was associated with an anterior pelvic ring injury (M3 case-specific modifier), intervention should be left to the surgeons' discretion. CONCLUSION: The AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification System offers a validated hierarchical system to approach sacral injuries. Through multispecialty and global surgeon input, a surgical algorithm was developed to determine appropriate operative indications for sacral trauma. Further validation is required, but this algorithm provides surgeons across the world with the basis for discussion and the development of standards of care and treatment.

Management of C0 Sacral Fractures Based on the AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification: A Narrative Review.

The Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Osteosynthese fragen Spine Sacral Injury Classification hierarchically separates fractures based on their injury severity with A-type fractures representing less severe injuries and C-type fractures representing the most severe fracture types. C0 fractures represent moderately severe injuries and have historically been referred to as nondisplaced "U-type" fractures. Injury management of these fractures can be controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this narrative review is to first discuss the Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Osteosynthese fragen Spine Sacral Injury Classification System and describe the different fracture types and classification modifiers, with particular emphasis on C0 fracture types. The narrative review will then focus on the epidemiology and etiology of C0 fractures with subsequent discussion focused on the clinical presentation for patients with these injuries. Next, we will describe the imaging findings associated with these injuries and discuss the injury management of these injuries with particular emphasis on operative management. Finally, we will outline the outcomes and complications that can be expected during the treatment of these injuries.

Global Validation of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification.

STUDY DESIGN: Global cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: To determine the classification accuracy, interobserver reliability, and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on an international group of AO Spine members. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous upper cervical spine injury classifications have primarily been descriptive without incorporating a hierarchical injury progression within the classification system. Further, upper cervical spine injury classifications have focused on distinct anatomical segments within the upper cervical spine. The AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System incorporates all injuries of the upper cervical spine into a single classification system focused on a hierarchical progression from isolated bony injuries (type A) to fracture dislocations (type C). METHODS: A total of 275 AO Spine members participated in a validation aimed at classifying 25 upper cervical spine injuries through computed tomography scans according to the AO Spine Upper Cervical Classification System. The validation occurred on two separate occasions, three weeks apart. Descriptive statistics for percent agreement with the gold-standard were calculated and the Pearson χ 2 test evaluated significance between validation groups. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS: The accuracy of AO Spine members to appropriately classify upper cervical spine injuries was 79.7% on assessment 1 (AS1) and 78.7% on assessment 2 (AS2). The overall intraobserver reproducibility was substantial (κ=0.70), while the overall interobserver reliability for AS1 and AS2 was substantial (κ=0.63 and κ=0.61, respectively). Injury location had higher interobserver reliability (AS1: κ = 0.85 and AS2: κ=0.83) than the injury type (AS1: κ=0.59 and AS2: 0.57) on both assessments. CONCLUSION: The global validation of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial interobserver agreement and intraobserver reproducibility. These results support the universal applicability of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.