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

Which Morphological Features of Facet Diastasis Predict Thoracolumbar Posterior Ligamentous Complex Injury as Defined by Magnetic Resonance Imaging?

BACKGROUND

The association of various morphological features of facet diastasis with posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) injury has not been previously described. This study aims to determine the diagnostic value of facet diastasis subtypes for diagnosing thoracolumbar PLC injury.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 337 consecutive patients with acute thoracolumbar fractures who had computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 10 days of injury. Three and 5 reviewers evaluated MRI and CT images, respectively. Facet diastasis was subclassified as follows: Dislocated, no articular surface apposition; subluxed, incomplete articular surface apposition; and facet fracture articular process fractures which may be displaced ≥2 mm or otherwise undisplaced, facet joint widening (FJW) ≥ 3 mm. We examined the diagnostic accuracy and the multivariate associations of facet diastasis subtypes with PLC injury in MRI.

RESULTS

Facet dislocation, subluxation, and displaced facet fracture yielded a high positive predictive value (PPV) for PLC injury (96%, 88%, and 94%, respectively). In contrast, undisplaced facet fracture and FJW yielded a moderate PPV for PLC injury (78%, and 45%, respectively). Facet dislocation, subluxation, and displaced facet fracture showed independent associations with PLC injury (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 38.4, 17.1, 13.4, respectively; P < 0.05). Undisplaced facet fracture and FJW were not associated with PLC injury (AOR = 3.9 [95% confidence interval, 0.49-38.4], P = 0.20) and (AOR = 1.94 [95% confidence interval, 0.48-7.13]; P = 0.20; P = 0.33), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Facet dislocation, subluxation, and displaced facet fracture, but not undisplaced facet fracture or FJW, were independently associated with PLC injury. Therefore, we propose to define facet diastasis as a surrogate marker of PLC injury in MRI based on these morphologies.

An international validation of the AO spine subaxial injury classification system

PURPOSE

To validate the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System with participants of various experience levels, subspecialties, and geographic regions.

METHODS

A live webinar was organized in 2020 for validation of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System. The validation consisted of 41 unique subaxial cervical spine injuries with associated computed tomography scans and key images. Intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System were calculated for injury morphology, injury subtype, and facet injury. The reliability and reproducibility of the classification system were categorized as slight (ƙ = 0-0.20), fair (ƙ = 0.21-0.40), moderate (ƙ = 0.41-0.60), substantial (ƙ = 0.61-0.80), or excellent (ƙ = > 0.80) as determined by the Landis and Koch classification.

RESULTS

A total of 203 AO Spine members participated in the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System validation. The percent of participants accurately classifying each injury was over 90% for fracture morphology and fracture subtype on both assessments. The interobserver reliability for fracture morphology was excellent (ƙ = 0.87), while fracture subtype (ƙ = 0.80) and facet injury were substantial (ƙ = 0.74). The intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology and subtype were excellent (ƙ = 0.85, 0.88, respectively), while reproducibility for facet injuries was substantial (ƙ = 0.76).

CONCLUSION

The AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System demonstrated excellent interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology, substantial reliability and reproducibility for facet injuries, and excellent reproducibility with substantial reliability for injury subtype.

AO Spine upper cervical injury classification system: a description and reliability study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Prior upper cervical spine injury classification systems have focused on injuries to the craniocervical junction (CCJ), atlas, and dens independently. However, no previous system has classified upper cervical spine injuries using a comprehensive system incorporating all injuries from the occiput to the C2-3 joint.

PURPOSE

To (1) determine the accuracy of experts at correctly classifying upper cervical spine injuries based on the recently proposed AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System (2) to determine their interobserver reliability and (3) identify the intraobserver reproducibility of the experts.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

International Multi-Center Survey.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A survey of international spine surgeons on 29 unique upper cervical spine injuries.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Classification accuracy, interobserver reliability, intraobserver reproducibility.

METHODS

Thirteen international AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma members participated in two live webinar-based classifications of 29 upper cervical spine injuries presented in random order, four weeks apart. Percent agreement with the gold-standard and kappa coefficients (ƙ) were calculated to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility.

RESULTS

Raters demonstrated 80.8% and 82.7% accuracy with identification of the injury classification (combined location and type) on the first and second assessment, respectively. Injury classification intraobserver reproducibility was excellent (mean, [range] ƙ=0.82 [0.58-1.00]). Excellent interobserver reliability was found for injury location (ƙ = 0.922 and ƙ=0.912) on both assessments, while injury type was substantial (ƙ=0.689 and 0.699) on both assessments. This correlated to a substantial overall interobserver reliability (ƙ=0.729 and 0.732).

CONCLUSIONS

Early phase validation demonstrated classification of upper cervical spine injuries using the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System to be accurate, reliable, and reproducible. Greater than 80% accuracy was detected for injury classification. The intraobserver reproducibility was excellent, while the interobserver reliability was substantial.

Cervical spine trauma: impact of different imaging classification systems in the clinical decision-making

Background and aim:

Considering the high rate of mortality and permanent disability related to vertebral traumas, an early and detailed diagnosis of the trauma and subsequently an immediate and effective intervention are crucial. Cervical vertebral injury classifications guide treatment choice through a severity grade based on radiological information. The purpose of the present study was to define which imaging classification system could provide the best morphological and clinical-surgical correlations for cervical spine traumas.

Methods:

We retrospectively analyzed patients evaluated for cervical spine trauma at our Institution in the period 2015-2020. Information regarding the morphological examination (using CT and MRI), the neurological evaluation, and the therapeutic management were collected. C3-C7 fractures were classified according to the SLIC and AOSpine criteria; axial lesions were classified according to the modified AOSpine for the C1-C2 compartment and through the Roy-Camille and the Anderson D’Alonzo system for the odontoid process of the axis.

Results:

29 patients were included in the final study population. Nine patients with axial spine trauma and 21 with subaxial cervical spine trauma. A conservative approach was applied in 16 patients while nine patients underwent neurosurgery. Considering the therapeutical indications provided by the SLIC system, a 76.9% accordance was found for patients with a <4 score, while a 100% concordance was calculated for patients with a >4 score undergoing neurosurgery. Regarding the AOSspine classification, a 28.6% concordance was observed for patients classified group B being treated with a posterior neurosurgical approach, while for patients belonging to subgroup C, considered for anterior neurosurgical approach, a 66.7% accordance was calculated.

Conclusions:

The study demonstrated a better morphological correlation for the AOSpine classification in subaxial trauma and the AOSpine and Anderson D’Alonzo in axial trauma. The therapeutic indication found a better correlation in the SLIC classification for subaxial trauma and the Anderson D’Alonzo for axial ones. (www.actabiomedica.it)