The AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system: A reliability and agreement study

Computed Tomography Findings and Classification of Traumatic Lumbosacral Spine Injuries: Insights from the AOSpine Classification System

Purpose

The main objective of this study was to provide a description and classification of lumbosacral spine injuries based on the new AOSpine classification system.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted on 75 patients with lumbosacral spine trauma who were admitted to Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy Hospital in Hue, Vietnam, between April 2021 and July 2022. All patients underwent lumbosacral computed tomography, and each injured vertebra was classified according to the AOSpine classification system. The frequency and percentage of subtypes of lumbosacral spine trauma were determined.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 50.6 ± 16.1 years, and the male-to-female ratio was 1.5:1. Falls and traffic accidents were found to be the main causes of injuries. Among the patients, 78.7% did not exhibit any neurological symptoms, while 1.3% experienced complete hemiplegia and 20% had incomplete hemiplegia. The most common fracture subtype was A3, accounting for 34.6% of cases.

Conclusion

This study provides valuable insights into the demographics, associated injuries, and classification of traumatic lumbosacral spine injuries based on the new AOSpine classification system. The study found that falls and motor vehicle accidents were the main causes of these injuries, with a higher proportion of male patients. The majority of injuries were classified as type A fractures, while type C fractures were the least common. Sacral fractures were relatively infrequent and often associated with pelvic ring fractures. These findings contribute to our understanding of lumbosacral spine trauma and can aid in the development of more effective treatment protocols.

Impact of different surgical and non-surgical interventions on health-related quality of life after thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurological deficit: protocol for a comprehensive systematic review with network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is no international consensus on how to treat thoracolumbar burst fractures (TLBFs) without neurological deficits. The planned systematic review with network meta-analyses (NMA) aims to compare the effects on treatment outcomes, focusing on midterm health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a comprehensive and systematic literature search, identifying studies comparing two or more treatment modalities. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science from January 2000 until July 2023 for publications. We will include (randomised and non-randomised) controlled clinical trials assessing surgical and non-surgical treatment methods for adults with TLBF. Screening of references, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment will be done independently by two reviewers. We will extract relevant studies, participants and intervention characteristics. The RoB will be assessed using the revised Cochrane RoB V.2.0 tool for randomised trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for controlled trials. The OR for dichotomous data and standardised mean differences for continuous data will be presented with their respective 95% CIs. We will conduct a random-effects NMA to assess the treatments and determine the superiority of the therapeutic approaches. Our primary outcomes will be midterm (6 months to 2 years after injury) overall HRQoL and pain. Secondary outcomes will include radiological or clinical findings. We will present network graphs, forest plots and relative rankings on plotted rankograms corresponding to the treatment rank probabilities. The ranking results will be represented by the area under the cumulative ranking curve. Analyses will be performed in Stata V.16.1 and R. The quality of the evidence will be evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Retrospective Evaluation of Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System and Thoracolumbar AO Spine Injury Scores for the Decision Treatment of Thoracolumbar Traumatic Fractures in 458 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND

Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System (TLICS) score and Thoracolumbar AO Spine Injury Score (TLAOSIS) are the scores preferred to classify and treat thoracolumbar fractures. Our study evaluates the reliability of both as guidelines for treatment.

METHODS

Single-center and retrospective case series of 458 patients. Clinical variables, radiology, and treatment were analyzed. We classified fractures according to the AO Spine Thoracolumbar System and retrospectively applied both scales in 2 groups (surgical and conservative). A concordance analysis and statistical measures comparing both were performed.

RESULTS

The patients were divided as follows: 257 patients (56.1%) in the conservative group and 201 patients (43.9%) in the surgical group. The concordance analysis between both scales was 89.7% (95% confidence interval, 86.5%-92.3%), and the Cohen kappa coefficient was 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 59%-76%). TLAOSIS had a higher tendency to classify patients in the gray zone (10.3% vs. 2.8%, P < 0.001), whereas TLICS had a more conservative nature (85.2% vs. 78.4%, P = 0.01). In the surgical group, the matching decision ratio was 29.9% for TLICS and 42.8% for TLAOSIS, but differences were found in TLICS being more conservative (70.1% vs. 57.2%, P = 0.01). In the conservative group, the matching decision ratio was 98.1% for both scales, being the main difference in the gray zone for TLAOSIS.

CONCLUSIONS

Both scales have a good concordance in general, with TLICS being more conservative overall. They had rather low coincidence when predicting surgery. Because TLAOSIS placed more patients in the gray zone, we think it might be slightly better for giving surgeons more license to decide a surgical approach on certain controversial types of fractures.

Is the AO spine thoracolumbar injury classification system reliable and practical? a systematic review

Controversy surrounding the classification of thoracolumbar injuries has given rise to various classification systems over the years, including the most recent AOSpine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System (ATLICS). This systematic review aims to provide an up-to-date evaluation of the literature, including assessment of a further three studies not analysed in previous reviews. In doing so, this is the first systematic review to include the reliability among non-spine subspecialty professionals and to document the wide variety between reliability across studies, particularly with regard to sub-type classification. Relevant studies were found via a systematic search of PubMed, EBESCO, Cochrane and Web of Science. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted in line with Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Twelve articles assessing the reliability of ATLICS were included in this review. The overall inter-observer reliability varied from fair to substantial, but the three additional studies in this review, compared to previous reviews, presented on average only fair reliability. The greatest variation of results was seen in A1 and B3 subtypes. Least reliably classified on average was A4 subtype. This systematic review concludes that ATLICS is reliable for the majority of injuries, but the variability within subtypes suggests the need for further research in assessing the needs of users in order to increase familiarity with ATLICS or perhaps the necessity to include more subtype-specific criteria into the system. Further research is also recommended on the reliability of modifiers, neurological classification and the application of ATLICS in a paediatric context.

Surgical options for symptomatic old osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a retrospective study of 238 cases

Background

Symptomatic osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) are increasing, as are acute and chronic pain episodes and progressive spinal deformities. However, there are no clear surgical treatment criteria for patients with these different symptoms. Therefore, this study aims to explore the surgical approaches for the treatment of OVCF with different symptoms and evaluate the feasibility of these surgical approaches.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 238 symptomatic OVCF patients who entered our hospital from June 2013 to 2016. According to clinical characteristics and imaging examinations, these patients were divided into I-V grades and their corresponding surgical methods were developed. I, old vertebral fracture with no apparent instability, vertebral augmentation; II, old vertebral fracture with local instability, posterior reduction fusion internal fixation; III, old fractures with spinal stenosis, posterior decompression and reduction fusion and internal fixation; IV, old vertebral fracture with kyphosis, posterior osteotomy with internal fixation and fusion; V, a mixture of the above types, posterior osteotomy (decompression) with internal fixation and fusion. Postoperative visual analog score (VAS), oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, sagittal index (SI) and ASIA grades of neurological function were observed.

Results

All 238 patients were followed up for 12–38 months, with an average follow-up of 18.5 months. After graded surgery, the VAS score, ODI score, and vertebral sagittal index SI of 238 patients were significantly improved, and the difference between the last follow-up results and the preoperative comparison was statistically significant (P ˂ 0.05). Besides, the postoperative ASIA grades of 16 patients with nerve injury were improved from 14 patients with preoperative grade C, 2 patients with grade D to 4 patients with postoperative grade D and 12 patients with postoperative grade E.

Conclusion

In this study, we concluded that graded surgery could better treat symptomatic old OVCF and restore spinal stability. This provides clinical reference and guidance for the treatment of symptomatic old OVCF in the future.

Reliability and Clinical Usefulness of Current Classifications in Traumatic Thoracolumbar Fractures: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

A validated classification remains the key to an appropriate treatment algorithm of traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. Considering the development of many classifications, it is remarkable that consensus about treatment is still lacking. We conducted a systematic review to investigate which classification can be used best for treatment decision making in thoracolumbar fractures.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane using the following search terms: classification (mesh), spinal fractures (mesh), and corresponding synonyms. All hits were viewed by 2 independent researchers. Papers were included if analyzing the reliability (kappa values) and clinical usefulness (specificity or sensitivity of an algorithm) of currently most used classifications (Magerl/AO, thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score [TLICS] or thoracolumbar injury severity score, and the new AO spine).

RESULTS

Twenty articles are included. The presented kappa values indicate moderate to substantial agreement for all 3 classifications. Regarding the clinical usefulness, > 90% agreement between actual treatment and classification recommendation is reported for most fractures. However, it appears that over 50% of the patients with a stable burst fracture (TLICS 2, AO-A3/A4) in daily practice are operated, so in these cases treatment decision is not primarily based on classification.

CONCLUSION

AO, TLICS, and new AO spine classifications have acceptable accuracy (kappa > 0.4), but are limited in clinical usefulness since the treatment recommendation is not always implemented in clinical practice. Differences in treatment decision making arise from several causes, such as surgeon and patient preferences and prognostic factors that are not included in classifications yet. The recently validated thoracolumbar AO spine injury score seems promising for use in clinical practice, because of inclusion of patient-specific modifiers. Future research should prove its definite value in treatment decision making.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Without the appropriate treatment, the impact of traumatic thoracolumbar fractures can be devastating. Therefore it is important to achieve consensus in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures.

Reliability and Validity of the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The AOSpine thoracolumbar injury classification system (ATLICS) is a relatively simple yet comprehensive classification of spine injuries introduced in 2013. This systematic review summarizes the evidence on measurement properties of this new classification, particularly the reliability and validity of the main morphologic injury types with and without inclusion of the subtypes.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed and Embase in September 2016. A revised version of the COSMIN checklist was used for evaluation of the quality of studies. Two independent reviewers performed all steps of the review.

RESULTS

Nine articles were included in the final review, all of which evaluated the reliability of the ATLICS and had a fair methodological quality. The reliability of the modifiers was unknown. Overall, the quality of evidence for reliability of the morphologic and neurologic classification sections was low. However, there was moderate evidence for poor interobserver reliability of the morphologic classification when all subtypes were included, and moderate evidence for good intraobserver reliability with exclusion of subtypes. The reliability of the morphologic classification was independent of the observer's experience and cultural background.

CONCLUSIONS

ATLICS represents the most current system for evaluation of thoracolumbar injuries. Based on this review, further studies with robust methodological quality are needed to evaluate the measurement properties of ATLICS. Shortcomings of the reliability studies are discussed.

Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of the old and new classifications of toracolombar fractures

Objective

To evaluate the inter and intraobserver agreement of the Magerl AO and AOSpine thoracolumbar fracture classification systems.

Methods

The participants were divided into two groups, the first composed of six spinal surgeons and the other composed of 18 medical orthopedic residents. On two different occasions, separated by an interval of one month, the participants analyzed and classified 25 radiographs with thoracolumbar fractures using both thoracolumbar fracture classification systems, Magerl AO and AOSpine. The results were analyzed for classification reliability using the Kappa coefficient (k).

Results

The Magerl AO classification system showed a fair interobserver agreement (k = 0.32), considering the fractures type and subtype, whereas the AOSpine classification system showed a moderate interobserver agreement (k = 0.59). The Magerl AO classification showed a fair intraobserver agreement for both residents and specialists (k = 0.21 and 0.38, respectively), while the AOSpine showed a substantial agreement between residents (k = 0.62) and moderate between specialists (k = 0.53).

Conclusions

When evaluating fracture morphology, the AOSpine thoracolumbar fracture classification system presented a better reliability and reproducibility compared to the Magerl AO classification system.

AOSpine Classification Systems (Subaxial, Thoracolumbar)

Numerous classification systems for subaxial and thoracolumbar spine injuries were proposed in the past with the attempt to facilitate communication between physicians. The AO-Magerl, thoracolumbar system, and Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification systems are all well known, but did not achieve universal international adoption. A group of international experienced spine trauma surgeons were brought together by AOSpine with the goal to develop a comprehensive yet simple classification system for spinal trauma. This article is a synopsis of the proposed subaxial and thoracolumbar classification systems. In several studies, this classification system was developed using an iterative consensus process among the clinical experts in sufficient number and quality of DICOM images of real cases searching for meaningful and reproducible patterns. Both systems are based on 3 injury morphology types: compression injuries (A), tension band injuries (B), and translational injuries (C) with a total of 9 subgroups. In the subaxial cervical spine 4 additional subtypes for facet injuries exist. Patient-specific modifiers and neurologic status were also included to aid surgeons in therapeutic decision making. The proposed classification systems for subaxial and thoracolumbar injuries showed substantial intraobserver and interobserver reliability (κ = 0.64-0.85) for grading fracture type. Grading for the subtypes varied considerably due to the low frequency of certain injury subtypes among other reasons. In summary, the AOSpine thoracolumbar and subaxial cervical spine injury systems show substantial reliability, thus being valuable tools for clinical and research purposes.

Reliability and reproducibility analysis of the AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system by Chinese spinal surgeons

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to analyze the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the new AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system in young Chinese orthopedic surgeons with different levels of experience in spinal trauma. Previous reports suggest that the new AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system demonstrates acceptable interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. However, there are few studies in Asia, especially in China.

METHODS

The AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system was applied to 109 patients with acute, traumatic thoracolumbar spinal injuries by two groups of spinal surgeons with different levels of clinical experience. The Kappa coefficient was used to determine interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility.

RESULTS

The overall Kappa coefficient for all cases was 0.362, which represents fair reliability. The Kappa statistic was 0.385 for A-type injuries and 0.292 for B-type injuries, which represents fair reliability, and 0.552 for C-type injuries, which represents moderate reliability. The Kappa coefficient for intraobserver reproducibility was 0.442 for A-type injuries, 0.485 for B-type injuries, and 0.412 for C-type injuries. These values represent moderate reproducibility for all injury types. The raters in Group A provided significantly better interobserver reliability than Group B (P < 0.05). There were no between-group differences in intraobserver reproducibility.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the new AO spine injury classification system may be applied in day-to-day clinical practice in China following extensive training of healthcare providers. Further prospective studies in different healthcare providers and clinical settings are essential for validation of this classification system and to assess its utility.