An independent inter- and intra-observer agreement assessment of the Eno classification of sacroiliac joint degeneration.

BACKGROUND: Recently, a scoring system to grade sacroiliac joint (SIJ) degeneration using computed tomography (CT) scans was described. No independent evaluation has determined the inter- and intra-observer agreement using this scheme. PURPOSE: To perform an independent inter- and intra-observer agreement assessment using the Eno classification and determining gas in the SIJ. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied 64 patients aged ≥60 years who were evaluated with abdominal and pelvic computed tomography scans. Six physicians (three orthopaedic spine surgeons and three musculoskeletal radiologists) assessed axial images to grade SIJ degeneration into grade 0 (normal), grade 1 (mild degeneration), grade 2 (significant degeneration), and grade 3 (ankylosis). We also evaluated the agreement assessing the presence of gas in the SIJ. After a four-week interval, all cases were presented in a random sequence for repeat assessment. We determined the agreement using the kappa (κ) or weighted kappa coefficient (wκ). RESULTS: The inter-observer agreement was moderate (wκ = 0.50 [0.44-0.56]), without differences among surgeons (wκ = 0.53 [0.45-0.61]) and radiologists (wκ = 0.49 [0.42-0.57]). The agreement evaluating the presence of gas was also moderate (κ = 0.45 [0.35-0.54]), but radiologists obtained better agreement (κ = 0.61 [0.48-0.72]) than surgeons (κ = 0.29 [0.18-0.39]). The intra-observer agreement using the classification was substantial (wκ = 0.79 [0.76-0.82]), without differences comparing surgeons (wκ = 0.75 [0.70-0.80]) and radiologists (wκ = 0.83 [0.79-0.87]). The intra-rater agreement evaluating gas was substantial (κ = 0.77 [0.72-0.82]), without differences between surgeons (κ = 0.71 [0.63-0.78]) and radiologists (κ = 0.84 [0.78-0.90]). CONCLUSION: Given the only moderate agreement obtained using the Eno classification, it does not seem adequate to be used in clinical practice or in research.

An inter- and intra-rater agreement assessment of a novel classification of pyogenic spinal infections.

PURPOSE: Pola et al. described a clinical-radiological classification of pyogenic spinal infections (PSI) based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features including vertebral destruction, soft tissue involvement, and epidural abscess, along with the neurological status. We performed an inter- and intra-observer agreement evaluation of this classification. METHODS: Complete MRI studies of 80 patients with PSI were selected and classified using the scheme described by Pola et al. by seven evaluators. After a four-week interval, all cases were presented to the same assessors in a random sequence for repeat assessment. We used the weighted kappa statistics (wκ) to establish the inter- and intra-observer agreement. RESULTS: The inter-observer agreement was substantial considering the main categories (wκ = 0.77; 0.71-0.82), but moderate considering the subtypes (wκ = 0.51; 0.45-0.58). The intra-observer agreement was substantial considering the main types (wκ = 0.65; 0.59-0.71), and moderate considering the subtypes (wκ = 0.58; 0.54-0.63). CONCLUSION: The agreement at the main type level indicates that this classification allows adequate communication and may be used in clinical practice; at the subtypes level, the agreement is only moderate.

Accuracy and reliability of the AO Spine subaxial cervical spine classification system grading subaxial cervical facet injury morphology.

PURPOSE: A classification system was recently developed by the international association AO Spine for assessing subaxial cervical spine fractures. Significant variability exists between users of the facet component, which consists of four morphological types (F1-F4). The primary aims of this study were to assess the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of this new system's facet injury morphological classifications. METHODS: A survey consisting of 16 computed tomography (CT) scans of patients with cervical facet fractures was distributed to spine surgeon members of AO Spine Latin America. To provide a gold standard diagnosis for comparison, all 16 injuries had been classified previously by six co-authors and only were included after total consensus was achieved. Demographic and surgical practice characteristics of all respondents were analyzed, and diagnostic accuracy calculated. Inter- and intra-observer agreement rates were calculated across two survey rounds, conducted one month apart. RESULTS: A total of 135 surgeons completed both surveys, among whom the mean age was 41.6 years (range 26-71), 130 (96.3%) were men, and 83 (61.5%) were orthopedic surgeons. The mean time in practice as a spine surgeon was 9.7 years (1-30). The overall diagnostic accuracy of all responses was 65.4%. Inter-observer and intra-observer agreement rates for F1/F2/F3/F4 were 55.4%/47.6%/64.0%/94.7% and 60.0%/49.1%/58.0%/93.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study evaluates the AO Spine Classification System specifically for facet injuries involving the subaxial cervical spine in a large sample of spine surgeons. There was significant variability in diagnostic accuracy for F1 through F3-type fractures, whereas almost universal agreement was achieved for F4-type injuries.

COVID-19 and the rise of virtual medicine in spine surgery: a worldwide study.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic forced many surgeons to adopt "virtual medicine" practices, defined as telehealth services for patient care and online platforms for continuing medical education. The purpose of this study was to assess spine surgeon reliance on virtual medicine during the pandemic and to discuss the future of virtual medicine in spine surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive survey addressing demographic data and virtual medicine practices was distributed to spine surgeons worldwide between March 27, 2020, and April 4, 2020. RESULTS: 902 spine surgeons representing seven global regions responded. 35.6% of surgeons were identified as "high telehealth users," conducting more than half of clinic visits virtually. Predictors of high telehealth utilization included working in an academic practice (OR = 1.68, p = 0.0015) and practicing in Europe/North America (OR 3.42, p < 0.0001). 80.1% of all surgeons were interested in online education. Dedicating more than 25% of one's practice to teaching (OR = 1.89, p = 0.037) predicted increased interest in online education. 26.2% of respondents were identified as "virtual medicine surgeons," defined as surgeons with both high telehealth usage and increased interest in online education. Living in Europe/North America and practicing in an academic practice increased odds of being a virtual medicine surgeon by 2.28 (p = 0.002) and 1.15 (p = 0.0082), respectively. 93.8% of surgeons reported interest in a centralized platform facilitating surgeon-to-surgeon communication. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has changed spine surgery by triggering rapid adoption of virtual medicine practices. The demonstrated global interest in virtual medicine suggests that it may become part of the "new normal" for surgeons in the post-pandemic era.

Telemedicine in research and training: spine surgeon perspectives and practices worldwide.

PURPOSE: To utilize a global survey to elucidate spine surgeons' perspectives towards research and resident education within telemedicine. METHODS: A cross-sectional, anonymous email survey was circulated to the members of AO Spine, an international organization consisting of spine surgeons from around the world. Questions were selected and revised using a Delphi approach. A major portion of the final survey queried participants on experiences with telemedicine in training, the utility of telemedicine for research, and the efficacy of telemedicine as a teaching tool. Responses were compared by region. RESULTS: A total of 485 surgeons completed the survey between May 15, 2020 and May 31, 2020. Though most work regularly with trainees (83.3%) and 81.8% agreed that telemedicine should be incorporated into clinical education, 61.7% of respondents stated that trainees are not present during telemedicine visits. With regards to the types of clinical education that telemedicine could provide, only 33.9% of respondents agreed that interpretation of physical exam maneuvers can be taught (mean score = - 0.28, SD = ± 1.13). The most frequent research tasks performed over telehealth were follow-up of imaging (28.7%) and study group meetings (26.6%). Of all survey responses provided by members, there were no regional differences (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Our study of spine surgeons worldwide noted high agreement among specialists for the implantation of telemedicine in trainee curricula, underscoring the global acceptance of this medium for patient management going forward. A greater emphasis towards trainee participation as well as establishing best practices in telemedicine are essential to equip future spine specialists with the necessary skills for navigating this emerging platform.

Provider confidence in the telemedicine spine evaluation: results from a global study.

PURPOSE: To utilize data from a global spine surgeon survey to elucidate (1) overall confidence in the telemedicine evaluation and (2) determinants of provider confidence. METHODS: Members of AO Spine International were sent a survey encompassing participant's experience with, perception of, and comparison of telemedicine to in-person visits. The survey was designed through a Delphi approach, with four rounds of question review by the multi-disciplinary authors. Data were stratified by provider age, experience, telemedicine platform, trust in telemedicine, and specialty. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-five surgeons participated in the survey. The global effort included respondents from Africa (19.9%), Asia Pacific (19.7%), Europe (24.3%), North America (9.4%), and South America (26.6%). Providers felt that physical exam-based tasks (e.g., provocative testing, assessing neurologic deficits/myelopathy, etc.) were inferior to in-person exams, while communication-based aspects (e.g., history taking, imaging review, etc.) were equivalent. Participants who performed greater than 50 visits were more likely to believe telemedicine was at least equivalent to in-person visits in the ability to make an accurate diagnosis (OR 2.37, 95% C.I. 1.03-5.43). Compared to in-person encounters, video (versus phone only) visits were associated with increased confidence in the ability of telemedicine to formulate and communicate a treatment plan (OR 3.88, 95% C.I. 1.71-8.84). CONCLUSION: Spine surgeons are confident in the ability of telemedicine to communicate with patients, but are concerned about its capacity to accurately make physical exam-based diagnoses. Future research should concentrate on standardizing the remote examination and the development of appropriate use criteria in order to increase provider confidence in telemedicine technology.

Spine surgeon perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telemedicine: an international study.

INTRODUCTION: While telemedicine usage has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains little consensus about how spine surgeons perceive virtual care. The purpose of this study was to explore international perspectives of spine providers on the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. METHODS: Responses from 485 members of AO Spine were analyzed, covering provider perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. All questions were optional, and blank responses were excluded from analysis. RESULTS: The leading challenges reported by surgeons were decreased ability to perform physical examinations (38.6%), possible increased medicolegal exposure (19.3%), and lack of reimbursement parity compared to traditional visits (15.5%). Fewer than 9.0% of respondents experienced technological issues. On average, respondents agreed that telemedicine increases access to care for rural/long-distance patients, provides societal cost savings, and increases patient convenience. Responses were mixed about whether telemedicine leads to greater patient satisfaction. North Americans experienced the most challenges, but also thought telemedicine carried the most benefits, whereas Africans reported the fewest challenges and benefits. Age did not affect responses. CONCLUSION: Spine surgeons are supportive of the benefits of telemedicine, and only a small minority experienced technical issues. The decreased ability to perform the physical examination was the top challenge and remains a major obstacle to virtual care for spine surgeons around the world, although interestingly, 61.4% of providers did not acknowledge this to be a major challenge. Significant groundwork in optimizing remote physical examination maneuvers and achieving legal and reimbursement clarity is necessary for widespread implementation.

Correction to: Learning from the past: did experience with previous epidemics help mitigate the impact of COVID-19 among spine surgeons worldwide?

Unfortunately, the 13th author name has been incorrectly published in the original publication. The complete correct name is given below.

Learning from the past: did experience with previous epidemics help mitigate the impact of COVID-19 among spine surgeons worldwide?

PURPOSE: Spine surgeons around the world have been universally impacted by COVID-19. The current study addressed whether prior experience with disease epidemics among the spine surgeon community had an impact on preparedness and response toward COVID-19. METHODS: A 73-item survey was distributed to spine surgeons worldwide via AO Spine. Questions focused on: demographics, COVID-19 preparedness, response, and impact. Respondents with and without prior epidemic experience (e.g., SARS, H1NI, MERS) were assessed on preparedness and response via univariate and multivariate modeling. Results of the survey were compared against the Global Health Security Index. RESULTS: Totally, 902 surgeons from 7 global regions completed the survey. 24.2% of respondents had prior experience with global health crises. Only 49.6% reported adequate access to personal protective equipment. There were no differences in preparedness reported by respondents with prior epidemic exposure. Government and hospital responses were fairly consistent around the world. Prior epidemic experience did not impact the presence of preparedness guidelines. There were subtle differences in sources of stress, coping strategies, performance of elective surgeries, and impact on income driven by prior epidemic exposure. 94.7% expressed a need for formal, international guidelines to help mitigate the impact of the current and future pandemics. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to note that prior experience with infectious disease crises did not appear to help spine surgeons prepare for the current COVID-19 pandemic. Based on survey results, the GHSI was not an effective measure of COVID-19 preparedness. Formal international guidelines for crisis preparedness are needed to mitigate future pandemics.

Monitoring lumbar plexus integrity in extreme lateral transpsoas approaches to the lumbar spine: a new protocol with anatomical bases.

UNLABELLED: XLIF is an increasingly popular procedure that requires traversing the psoas, with the potential risk of injuring the lumbar plexus nerves. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IOM) is, therefore, critical in this kind of procedures; nevertheless, there were some reports of neural damage. PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of a new protocol for IOM during XLIF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, nonrandomized, institutional review board-approved study enrolled adult patients of both sexes undergoing XLIF at the Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires between 2012 and 2014. Preoperative and immediate postoperative neurological examinations were carried out, paying special attention to lumbar plexus motor and sensory territories. IOM included EMG and transpsoas stimulation, considering the territories of every motor and sensory branch of the lumbar plexus. RESULTS: 107 patients (133 lumbar levels) were evaluated. Reproducible responses were obtained in the collateral and terminal branches of the lumbar plexus, which were well preserved. No patient (0%) had new motor postoperative deficits. Nineteen (17.75%) patients had minor and transient sensory symptoms, lasting less than a month. One patient (0.93%) had longer duration of sensory complaints (3 months). CONCLUSION: A detailed IOM of lumbar plexus branches can determine in real time the proximity of intrapsoas nerves during XLIF.

Navigating the Indeterminate Zone: Surgeons' Decision-Making Factors in Treating Vertebral Metastases with Spinal Instability Scores of 7-12.

BACKGROUND: The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) classification system is a validated and the most widely accepted instrument for defining instability in vertebral metastasis (VM), in which lesions scoring between 7 and 12 are defined as indeterminate and the treatment is controversial. This study aimed to determine which variables more frequently are considered by spine surgeons for choosing between the conservative and the surgical treatment of VMs among patients with an indeterminate SINS. METHODS: A single-round online survey was conducted with 10 spine surgeons with expertise in the management of VMs from our AO Spine Region. In this survey, each surgeon independently reviewed demographic and cancer-related variables of 36 real-life cases of patients with vertebral metastases scored between 7 and 12 in the SINS. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify significant SINS and non-SINS variables influencing the decision-making on surgical treatment. RESULTS: The most commonly variables considered important were the SINS element "mechanical pain", rated important for 44.4% of the cases, "lesion type" for 36.1%, and "degree of vertebral collapse" and the non-SINS factor "tumor histology" rated for 13.9% of cases. By far the factor most commonly rated unimportant was "posterior element compromise" (in 72.2% of cases). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons relied on mechanical pain and type of metastatic lesion for treatment choices. Vertebral collapse, spinal malalignment, and mobility were less influential. Spinal mobility was a predictor of surgical versus non-surgical treatment. The only variables not identified either by surgeons themselves or as a predictor of surgery selection was the presence/degree of posterolateral/posterior element involvement.

Percutaneous Versus Open Pedicle Screw Fixation for Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis of the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to compare percutaneous (PPS) versus open pedicle screw (OPS) fixation for treatment of thoracic and lumbar spondylodiscitis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Pyogenic spondylodiscitis of the thoracic and lumbar spine can produce instability, deformity, and/or neurological compromise. When medical treatment is unsuccessful, surgical treatment is indicated, with the conventional open approach the usual standard of care. However, percutaneous techniques can be advantageous in medically vulnerable patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, looking for comparative articles on pyogenic spondylodiscitis requiring surgical stabilization with pedicle screws. This systematic review is reported according to PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: From 215 articles initially identified, 7 retrospective studies were analyzed, encapsulating an overall sample of 722 patients: 405 male (56.1%) and 317 female (43.9%). The treatment modality was PPS fixation in 342 patients (47.4%) and OPS fixation in 380 (52.6%). For PPS, operating time was 29.75 minutes ( P <0.0001), blood loss 390.18 mL ( P <0.00001), postoperative pain 1.54 points ( P <0.00001), and length of stay 4.49 days ( P =0.001) less than with OPS fixation, and wound infection 7.2% ( P =0.003) less frequent. No difference in screw misplacement ( P =0.94) or loosening ( P =0.33) rates was observed. CONCLUSION: Employing PPS fixation to treat pyogenic spondylodiscitis of the thoracic and lumbar spine is associated with significantly reduced operating time, blood loss, postoperative pain, length of stay, and rates of wound infection than OPS fixation, with no difference between the 2 treatments in rates of screw misplacement or screw loosening.

An independent inter- and intra-observer agreement assessment of the AOSpine upper cervical injury classification system.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The complex anatomy of the upper cervical spine resulted in numerous separate classification systems of upper cervical spine trauma. The AOSpine upper cervical classification system (UCCS) was recently described; however, an independent agreement assessment has not been performed. PURPOSE: To perform an independent evaluation of the AOSpine UCCS. STUDY DESIGN: Agreement study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Eighty-four patients with upper cervical spine injuries. OUTCOME MEASURES: Inter-observer agreement; intra-observer agreement. METHODS: Complete imaging studies of 84 patients with upper cervical spine injuries, including all morphological types of injuries defined by the AOSpine UCCS were selected and classified by six evaluators (from three different countries). The 84 cases were presented to the same raters randomly after a 4-week interval for repeat evaluation. The Kappa coefficient (κ) was used to determine inter- and intra-observer agreement. RESULTS: The interobserver agreement was almost perfect when considering the fracture site (I, II or III), with κ=0.82 (0.78-0.83), but the agreement according to the site and type level was moderate, κ=0.57 (0.55-0.65). The intra-observer agreement was almost perfect considering the injury, with κ=0.83 (0.78-0.86), while according to site and type was substantial, κ=0.69 (0.67-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: We observed only a moderate inter-observer agreement using this classification. We believe our results can be explained because this classification attempted to organize many different injury types into a single scheme.

CT Scan in Subaxial Cervical Facet Injury: Is It Enough for Decision-Making?

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVES: Assessment of subaxial cervical facet injuries using the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System is based on CT scan findings. However, additional radiological evaluations are not directly considered. The aim of this study is to determine situations in which spine surgeons request additional radiological exams after a facet fracture. METHODS: A survey was sent to AO Spine members from Latin America. The evaluation considered demographic variables, routine use of the Classification, as well as the timepoint at which surgeons requested a cervical MRI, a vascular study, and/ or dynamic radiographs before treatment of facet fractures. RESULTS: There was 229 participants, mean age 42.9 ± 10.2 years; 93.4% were men. Orthopedic surgeons 57.6% with 10.7 ± 8.7 years of experience in spine surgery. A total of 86% used the Classification in daily practice. An additional study (MRI/vascular study/and dynamic radiographs) was requested in 53.3%/9.6%/43.7% in F1 facet injuries; 76.0%/20.1%/50.2% in F2; 89.1%/65.1%/28.4% in F3; and 94.8%/66.4%/16.6% in F4. An additional study was frequently required: F1 72.5%, F2 86.9%, F3 94.7%, and F4 96.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Spine surgeons generally requested additional radiological evaluations in facet injuries, and MRI was the most common. Dynamic radiographs had a higher prevalence for F1/F2 fractures; vascular studies were more common for F3/F4 especially among surgeons with fewer years of experience. Private hospitals had a lower spine trauma cases/year and requested more MRI and more dynamic radiographs in F1/F2. Neurosurgeons had more vascular studies and dynamic radiographs than orthopedic surgeons in all facet fractures.

Unplanned Readmission Following Early Postoperative Complications After Fusion Surgery in Adult Spine Deformity: A Multicentric Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Multicentric retrospective study, Level of evidence III. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this multicentric study was to analyze the prevalence and risk factors of early postoperative complications in adult spinal deformity patients treated with fusion. Additionally, we studied the impact of complications on unplanned readmission and hospital length of stay. METHODS: Eight spine centers from 6 countries in Latin America were involved in this study. Patients with adult spinal deformity treated with fusion surgery from 2017 to 2019 were included. Baseline and surgical characteristics such as age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, number of levels fused, number of surgical approaches were analyzed. Postoperative complications at 30 days were recorded according to Clavien-Dindo and Glassman classifications. RESULTS: 172 patients (120 females/52 males, mean age 59.4 ± 17.6) were included in our study. 78 patients suffered complications (45%) at 30 days, 43% of these complications were considered major. Unplanned readmission was observed in 35 patients (20,3%). Risk factors for complications were: Smoking, previous comorbidities, number of levels fused, two or more surgical approaches and excessive bleeding. Hospital length of stay in patients without and with complications was of 7.8 ± 13.7 and 17 ± 31.1 days, respectively (P 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of early postoperative complications in adult spinal deformity patients treated with fusion was of 45% in our study with 20% of unplanned readmissions at 30 days. Presence of complications significantly increased hospital length of stay.

Research Practices and Needs Among Spine Surgeons Worldwide.

OBJECTIVE: Resource allocation to research activities is challenging and there is limited evidence to justify decisions. Members of AO Spine were surveyed to understand the research practices and needs of spine surgeons worldwide. METHODS: An 84-item survey was distributed to the AO Spine community in September of 2020. Respondent demographics and insights regarding research registries, training and education, mentorship, grants and financial support, and future directions were collected. Responses were anonymous and compared among regions. RESULTS: A total of 333 spine surgeons representing all geographic regions responded; 52.3% were affiliated with an academic/university hospital, 91.0% conducted clinical research, and 60.9% had 5+ years of research experience. There was heterogeneity among research practices and needs across regions. North American respondents had more research experience (P = .023), began conducting research early on (P < .001), had an undergraduate science degree (P < .001), and were more likely to have access to a research coordinator or support staff (P = .042) compared to other regions. While all regions expressed having the same challenges in conducting research, Latin America, and Middle East/Northern Africa respondents were less encouraged to do research (P < .001). Despite regional differences, there was global support for research registries and research training and education. CONCLUSION: To advance spine care worldwide, spine societies should establish guidelines, conduct studies on pain management, and support predictive analytic modeling. Tailoring local/regional programs according to regional needs is advised. These results can assist spine societies in developing long-term research strategies and provide justified rationale to governments and funding agencies.

Telemedicine in Spine Surgery: Global Perspectives and Practices.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, anonymous, international survey. OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the rapid adoption of telemedicine in spine surgery. This study sought to determine the extent of adoption and global perspectives on telemedicine in spine surgery. METHODS: All members of AO Spine International were emailed an anonymous survey covering the participant's experiences with and perceptions of telemedicine. Descriptive statistics were used to depict responses. Responses were compared among regions. RESULTS: 485 spine surgeons participated in the survey. Telemedicine usage rose from <10.0% to >39.0% of all visits. A majority of providers (60.5%) performed at least one telemedicine visit. The format of "telemedicine" varied widely by region: European (50.0%) and African (45.2%) surgeons were more likely to use phone calls, whereas North (66.7%) and South American (77.0%) surgeons more commonly used video (P < 0.001). North American providers used telemedicine the most during COVID-19 (>60.0% of all visits). 81.9% of all providers "agreed/strongly agreed" telemedicine was easy to use. Respondents tended to "agree" that imaging review, the initial appointment, and postoperative care could be performed using telemedicine. Almost all (95.4%) surgeons preferred at least one in-person visit prior to the day of surgery. CONCLUSION: Our study noted significant geographical differences in the rate of telemedicine adoption and the platform of telemedicine utilized. The results suggest a significant increase in telemedicine utilization, particularly in North America. Spine surgeons found telemedicine feasible for imaging review, initial visits, and follow-up visits although the vast majority still preferred at least one in-person preoperative visit.

Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Spine Surgery: An International Survey of Clinical Practices Among Expert Spine Surgeons.

STUDY DESIGN: Questionnaire-based survey. OBJECTIVES: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication in spine surgery but universal guidelines for SSI prevention are lacking. The objectives of this study are to depict a global status quo on implemented prevention strategies in spine surgery, common themes of practice and determine key areas for future research. METHODS: An 80-item survey was distributed among spine surgeons worldwide via email. The questionnaire was designed and approved by an International Consensus Group on spine SSI. Consensus was defined as more than 60% of participants agreeing to a specific prevention strategy. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-two surgeons participated in the survey. Screening for Staphylococcus aureus (SA) is not common, whereas preoperative decolonization is performed in almost half of all hospitals. Body mass index (BMI) was not important for surgery planning. In contrast, elevated HbA1c level and hypoalbuminemia were often considered as reasons to postpone surgery. Cefazoline is the common drug for antimicrobial prophylaxis. Alcohol-based chlorhexidine is mainly used for skin disinfection. Double-gloving, wound irrigation, and tissue-conserving surgical techniques are routine in the operating room (OR). Local antibiotic administration is not common. Wound closure techniques and postoperative wound dressing routines vary greatly between the participating institutions. CONCLUSIONS: With this study we provide an international overview on the heterogeneity of SSI prevention strategies in spine surgery. We demonstrated a large heterogeneity for pre-, peri- and postoperative measures to prevent SSI. Our data illustrated the need for developing universal guidelines and for testing areas of controversy in prospective clinical trials.

Why are frailty indices not used systematically during preoperative spine consultations?

INTRODUCTION: Frailty indices are highly predictive of major medical and mechanical complications, lengths of hospital stay, and mortality rates after spine procedures. However, several barriers limit the extent to which spine surgeons employ these indices. The main purposes of the current study were to assess the use of frailty indices by Latin-American spine surgeons and identify the main barriers perceived to restrict their clinical application. METHODS: For this cross-sectional survey, a questionnaire evaluating the demographic characteristics of participating surgeons and their utilization of frailty indices were created in Google form and sent by e-mail to every registered member of AO Spine Latin America between October and November 2020. RESULTS: Of the 1047 surgeons sent the survey, 293 responded (response rate=28%). Half of the surgeons (51.7%) said they were unfamiliar with the terms ¨frailty´ and ¨frailty index", while 70.3% claimed not to use any frailty scale during their pre-operative assessments. The most frequently utilized index was the modified Frailty Index (mFI) (18%). The most important perceived barrier was the excessive amount of time required to calculate each patient's frailty score. Ninety-two percent of the spine surgeons felt sure that these scores could influence their therapeutic decisions, while 91% desired an easier-to-use risk-prevention scale. CONCLUSION: The main perceived barriers restricting the use of frailty indices were the time required to complete them, lack of index validation, and need for specific instruments to calculate the index score.

Inter- and intra-observer agreement using the new AOSpine sacral fracture classification, with a comparison between spine and pelvic trauma surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Sacral fractures treatment frequently involves both spine and pelvic trauma surgeons; therefore, a consistent communication among surgical specialists is required. We independently assessed the new AOSpine sacral fracture classification's agreement from the perspective of spine and pelvic trauma surgeons. METHODS: Complete computerized tomography (CT) scans of 80 patients with sacral fractures were selected and classified using the new AOSpine sacral classification system by six spine surgeons and three pelvic trauma surgeons. After four weeks, the 80 cases were presented and reassessed by the same raters in a new random sequence. The Kappa coefficient (κ) was used to measure the inter-and intra-observer agreement. RESULTS: The inter-observer agreement considering the fracture severity types (A, B, or C) was substantial for spine surgeons (κ= 0.68 [0.63 - 0.72]) and pelvic trauma surgeons (κ= 0.74 (0.64 - 0.84). Regarding the subtypes, both groups achieved moderate agreement with κ= 0.52 (0.49 - 0.54) for spine surgeons and κ= 0.51 (0.45 - 0.57) for pelvic trauma surgeons. The intra-observer agreement considering the fracture types was substantial for spine surgeons (κ= 0.74 [0.63 - 0.75]) and almost perfect for pelvic trauma surgeons (κ= 0.84 [0.74 - 0.93]). Concerning the subtypes, both groups achieved substantial agreement with, κ= 0.61 (0.56 - 0.67) for spine surgeons and κ= 0.68 (0.62 - 0.74) for pelvic trauma surgeons. CONCLUSION: This classification allows an adequate communication for spine surgeons and pelvic trauma surgeons at the fracture severity type, but the agreement is only moderate at the subtype level. Future prospective studies are required to evaluate whether this classification allows for treatment recommendations and establishing prognosis in patients with sacral fractures.