OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and reliability of the new AO Classification, a recent classification system for Thoraco-Lumbar Spine Trauma (TLST). DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: We applied the new AO system in patients with TLST treated according to the TLICS. Two researchers classified injuries independently. Eight weeks later, the classification was repeated for intra and inter-observer agreement evaluation. To evaluate safety, we correlated the treatment performed based on the TLICS with the newer AO classification obtained. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were included in this study, with a mean follow-up of 363.8 days. Twenty-three neurologically intact patients were initially treated conservatively. Their mean TLICS was 1.78 (1-4 points). Four patients underwent late surgery. Thirty-one patients were treated surgically. Their average TLICS was 7.22 points (4-10 points). Agreements in the four independent evaluations according to AO groups and subgroups were of 64.8% (35/54) and 55.5% (30/54) respectively. Kappa index for groups A, B and C was 0.75, 0.7 and 0.85 respectively. Kappa index for subgroups ranged from 0.16 to 0.85. Regarding safety, thirty (57.6%) patients with total subgroups agreement were analyzed. All patients with fracture in groups B and C underwent surgical treatment and patients in group A received surgery according to neurological status or failure of conservative treatment. CONCLUSION: The newer AO spine classification demonstrated good reliability at the level of groups. Subgroups demonstrated worse and varying reliability. Although the safety analysis was limited due to the low level of total concordance among all evaluations, patients from group A can be treated conservatively or surgically, whereas those from groups B and C are treated surgically.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and reliability of the new AO Classification, a recent classification system for Thoraco-Lumbar Spine Trauma (TLST). DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: We applied the new AO system in patients with TLST treated according to the TLICS. Two researchers classified injuries independently. Eight weeks later, the classification was repeated for intra and inter-observer agreement evaluation. To evaluate safety, we correlated the treatment performed based on the TLICS with the newer AO classification obtained. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were included in this study, with a mean follow-up of 363.8 days. Twenty-three neurologically intact patients were initially treated conservatively. Their mean TLICS was 1.78 (1-4 points). Four patients underwent late surgery. Thirty-one patients were treated surgically. Their average TLICS was 7.22 points (4-10 points). Agreements in the four independent evaluations according to AO groups and subgroups were of 64.8% (35/54) and 55.5% (30/54) respectively. Kappa index for groups A, B and C was 0.75, 0.7 and 0.85 respectively. Kappa index for subgroups ranged from 0.16 to 0.85. Regarding safety, thirty (57.6%) patients with total subgroups agreement were analyzed. All patients with fracture in groups B and C underwent surgical treatment and patients in group A received surgery according to neurological status or failure of conservative treatment. CONCLUSION: The newer AO spine classification demonstrated good reliability at the level of groups. Subgroups demonstrated worse and varying reliability. Although the safety analysis was limited due to the low level of total concordance among all evaluations, patients from group A can be treated conservatively or surgically, whereas those from groups B and C are treated surgically.
Entities:
Keywords:
AO spine; Classification; Lumbar; Strauma; TLICS; Thoracic
Authors: Jeffrey A Rihn; Nuo Yang; Charles Fisher; Davor Saravanja; Harvey Smith; William B Morrison; James Harrop; Alexander R Vacaro Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2010-04
Authors: Christopher M Bono; Alexander R Vaccaro; R J Hurlbert; Paul Arnold; F C Oner; James Harrop; Neel Anand Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Andrei F Joaquim; Yvens B Fernandes; Rodrigo A C Cavalcante; Rodrigo M Fragoso; Donizeti C Honorato; Alpesh A Patel Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-01-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: F C Oner; L M P Ramos; R K J Simmermacher; P T D Kingma; C H Diekerhof; W J A Dhert; A J Verbout Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Alpesh A Patel; Andrew Dailey; Darrel S Brodke; Michael Daubs; James Harrop; Peter G Whang; Alexander R Vaccaro Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2009-03
Authors: Peter G Whang; Alexander R Vaccaro; Kornelius A Poelstra; Alpesh A Patel; D Greg Anderson; Todd J Albert; Alan S Hilibrand; James S Harrop; Ashwini D Sharan; John K Ratliff; R John Hurlbert; Paul Anderson; Bizhan Aarabi; Lali H S Sekhon; Ralf Gahr; John A Carrino Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-04-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Alexander R Vaccaro; Cumhur Oner; Christopher K Kepler; Marcel Dvorak; Klaus Schnake; Carlo Bellabarba; Max Reinhold; Bizhan Aarabi; Frank Kandziora; Jens Chapman; Rajasekaran Shanmuganathan; Michael Fehlings; Luiz Vialle Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Andrei Fernandes Joaquim; Sérgio Augusto Rodrigues; Felipe Soares DA Silva; Otávio Turolo DA Silva; Enrico Ghizoni; Helder Tedeschi; Gregory D Schroeder; Alexander R Vaccaro; Alpesh A Patel Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2018-08-15
Authors: Juma Magogo; Albert Lazaro; Mechris Mango; Scott L Zuckerman; Andreas Leidinger; Salim Msuya; Nicephorus Rutabasibwa; Hamisi K Shabani; Roger Härtl Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2020-01-21