| Literature DB >> 34858534 |
Andrew Z Mo1, Patricia E Miller2, Javier Pizones3, Ilkka Helenius4, Michael Ruf5, Ron El-Hawary6, Rafael Garcia de Oliveira7, Dror Ovadia8, Noriaki Kawakami9, Haemish Crawford10, Thierry Odent11, Muharrem Yazici12, Michael B Johnson13, Firoz Miyanji14, Daniel J Hedequist2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System and if it is reliable and reproducible when applied to the paediatric population globally.Entities:
Keywords: AOSpine; Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System; intraobserver reliability; posterior ligamentous complex; thoracolumbar
Year: 2021 PMID: 34858534 PMCID: PMC8582611 DOI: 10.1302/1863-2548.15.200188
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Child Orthop ISSN: 1863-2521 Impact factor: 1.548
Fig. 1CT sagittal image demonstrating A3 injury of the L1 vertebra.
Fig. 2MRI STIR (short T1//tau inversion recovery) sagittal cut demonstrating L2-3 B2 and L2 A3 injury with posterior ligamentous complex disruption.
Fig. 3CT sagittal cut demonstrating L2-3 C injury with L2-3 translation.
Fig. 4Study design.
Patient, injury, and surgical characteristics (n = 25)
| Characteristic |
|
|---|---|
| Mean age, yrs ( | 13.6 (3.61) |
| Mechanism of injury, n (%) | |
| Motor vehicle accident | 15 ( |
| Fall | 7 ( |
| Sports related | 3 ( |
| Procedure type, n (%) | |
| Posterior | 25 ( |
|
| |
| AOSpine, n (%) | |
| A | 6 ( |
| B | 14 ( |
| C | 5 ( |
Distribution of thoracolumbar injuries (n = 300) for each read
| AO classification | Read 1, n (%) | Read 2, n (%) |
|---|---|---|
| A1 | 7 ( | 6 ( |
| A2 | 5 ( | 10 ( |
| A3 | 55 ( | 49 ( |
| A4 | 56 ( | 56 ( |
| A5 | 5 ( | 5 ( |
| B1 | 37 ( | 37 ( |
| B2 | 69 ( | 70 ( |
| B3 | 1 ( | 3 ( |
| C | 65 ( | 64 ( |
Interobserver reliability across 12 observers
| Classification | Coefficient | 95% confidence interval |
|---|---|---|
| Primary classifications (A, B and C) |
| |
| Read 1 | 0.74 | 0.71 to 0.78 |
| Read 2 | 0.73 | 0.69 to 0.76 |
| All reads | 0.74 | 0.71 to 0.76 |
|
| α
| |
| Read 1 | 0.68 | 0.51 to 0.81 |
| Read 2 | 0.65 | 0.45 to 0.80 |
| All reads | 0.67 | 0.53 to 0.77 |
α , Krippendorff’s alpha coefficient; k , Fleiss’s kappa coefficient
Intraobserver reliability across all 12 observers and by individual observer
| Classification | Coefficient | 95% confidence interval | Percentage agreement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary classifications (A, B and C) |
| ||
| All raters | 0.91 | 0.83 to 0.99 |
|
| Rater 1 | 0.87 | 0.59 to 1 |
|
| Rater 2 | 0.93 | 0.64 to 1 |
|
| Rater 3 | 0.94 | 0.65 to 1 |
|
| Rater 4 | 0.94 | 0.66 to 1 |
|
| Rater 5 | 0.93 | 0.64 to 1 |
|
| Rater 6 | 0.94 | 0.65 to 1 |
|
| Rater 7 | 1.00 | 0.71 to 1 |
|
| Rater 8 | 0.81 | 0.53 to 1 |
|
| Rater 9 | 0.87 | 0.59 to 1 |
|
| Rater 10 | 0.87 | 0.59 to 1 |
|
| Rater 11 | 0.82 | 0.54 to 1 |
|
| Rater 12 | 1.00 | 0.71 to 1 |
|
|
| α
| ||
| All raters | 0.88 | 0.83 to 0.93 |
|
| Rater 1 | 0.81 | 0.50 to 1.00 |
|
| Rater 2 | 0.85 | 0.55 to 1.00 |
|
| Rater 3 | 0.93 | 0.79 to 0.99 |
|
| Rater 4 | 0.88 | 0.60 to 0.99 |
|
| Rater 5 | 0.90 | 0.69 to0.99 |
|
| Rater 6 | 0.94 | 0.82 to 1.00 |
|
| Rater 7 | 0.94 | 0.84 to 0.99 |
|
| Rater 8 | 0.77 | 0.43 to 0.97 |
|
| Rater 9 | 0.93 | 0.80 to 1.00 |
|
| Rater 10 | 0.87 | 0.62 to 0.99 |
|
| Rater 11 | 0.83 | 0.60 to 0.98 |
|
| Rater 12 | 0.95 | 0.83 to 1.00 |
|
α , Krippendorff’s alpha coefficient; kF, Fleiss’s kappa coefficient