Reliability and Agreement of Different Spine Fracture Classification Systems: An Independent Intraobserver and Interobserver Study

Validation and Comparison of Common Thoracolumbar Injury Classification Treatment Algorithms and a Novel Modification

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The most common thoracolumbar trauma classification systems are the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) and the Thoracolumbar AO Spine Injury Score (TL AOSIS). Predictive accuracy of treatment recommendations is a historical limitation. Our objective was to validate and compare TLICS, TL AOSIS, and a modified TLICS (mTLICS) that awards 2 points for the presence of fractured vertebral body height loss >50% and/or spinal canal stenosis >50% at the fracture site.

METHODS

The medical records of adult patients with acute, traumatic thoracolumbar injuries at an urban, Level 1 trauma center were retrospectively reviewed. TLICS, mTLICS, and TL AOSIS scores were calculated for 476 patients using computed tomography, MRI, and the documented neurological examination. Treatment recommendations were compared with treatment received. Standard validity measures were calculated.

RESULTS

Treatment recommendations matched actual treatments in 95.6% (455/476) of patients for mTLICS, 91.3% (435/476) for TLICS, and 92.6% (441/476) for TL AOSIS. The differences between the accuracy of mTLICS and TLICS (95.6% vs 91.3%, P < .001) and between mTLICS and TL AOSIS (95.6% vs 91.3%, P = .003) were significant. The sensitivity of mTLICS was higher than that of TLICS (96.3% vs 81.3%, P < .001), and the sensitivity of TL AOSIS was higher than that of TLICS (92.5% vs 81.3%, P < .001). The specificity of mTLICS was equal to that of TLICS (95.3%) and higher than that of TL AOSIS (95.3% vs 92.7%, P = .02). The modifier led to substantial outperformance of mTLICS over TLICS due to 38 patients (20 of whom received surgery) moving from a TLICS score of <4 to a mTLICS score equal to 4.

CONCLUSION

All systems performed well. The mTLICS had improved sensitivity and accuracy compared with TLICS and higher accuracy and specificity than TL AOSIS. The sensitivity of TL AOSIS was higher than that of TLICS. Prospective, multi-institutional reliability and validity studies of this mTLICS are needed for adoption.

Early Surgical Treatment of Thoracolumbar Fractures With Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Scores Less Than 4

BACKGROUND

Thoracolumbar fractures (TLFs) are the most common spinal fractures seen in patients with trauma. The Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity (TLICS) classification system is commonly used to help clinicians make more consistent and objective decisions in assessing the indications for surgical intervention in patients with thoracolumbar fractures. Patients with TLICS scores <4 are treated conservatively, but a percentage of them will have failed conservative treatment and require surgery at a later date.

METHODS

All patients who received an orthopaedic consult between January 2016 and December 2020 were screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria. For patients meeting the study requirements, deidentified data were collected including demographics, diagnostics workup, and hospital course. Data analysis was conducted comparing length of stay, time between first consult and surgery, and time between surgery and discharge among each group.

RESULTS

1.4% of patients with a TLICS score <4 not treated surgically at initial hospital stay required surgery at a later date. Patients with a TLICS score <4 treated conservatively had a statistically significant shorter hospital stay compared with those treated surgically. However, when time between initial consult and surgery was factored into the total duration of hospital stay for those treated surgically, the duration was statistically equivalent to those treated nonsurgically.

CONCLUSION

For patients with a TLICS score <4 with delayed mobilization after 3 days in the hospital or polytraumatic injuries, surgical stabilization at initial presentation can decrease the percentage of patients who fail conservative care and require delayed surgery. Patients treated surgically have a longer length of stay than those treated conservatively, but there is no difference in stay when time between consult and surgery was accounted for. In addition, initial surgery in patients with delayed mobilization can prevent long waits to surgery, while conservative measures are exhausted.

LEVEL III EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study.

Thoracolumbar spine trauma: a guide for the FRCS examination

Thoracolumbar spine injuries are commonly seen in trauma settings and have a high risk of causing serious morbidity. There can be controversy when it comes to classifying thoracolumbar injuries within the spinal community, but there remains a need to classify, evaluate and manage thoracolumbar fractures. This article aims to provide a guide on classification of thoracolumbar spine injuries using the AO Spine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System (AO TLICS).

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.

The Effect of Thoracolumbar Injury Classification in the Clinical Outcome of Operative and Non-Operative Treatments

This review assesses the validity of a biomechanical approach using finite element analysis in the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score System (TLICS) by addressing the “gray zone” decision discrepancy of thoracolumbar spinal injuries. A systematic review was performed using the keywords “Thoracolumbar Injury Classification” AND “finite element analysis of the spinal column” to evaluate the validity of the TLICS and finite element analysis of the thoracolumbar spinal column. Results were classified according to the main conclusions and level of evidence. Thirteen articles are included. Four of the articles evaluated the TLICS in comparison to other classification systems of thoracolumbar spinal injuries. A notable finding is that the TLICS had inconsistencies with other classification systems in the treatment of burst fractures without neurological deficits. One article evaluated the TLICS with the inclusion of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation, which decreased the agreement between the suggested and actual treatment. Among the three finite element analysis studies, limited data have been published on the posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) status when an injury is suspected or indeterminate. The TLICS has been a reliable classification system in the management of single-column fractures and three-column injuries treated with surgical stabilization. Special attention to enhancing the TLICS classification system by eliminating the “gray zone” of a TLICS score of 4 is essential. Biomedical computational modeling evaluating the PLC status of indeterminate or injury suspected is needed to enhance the current TLICS system and to clarify the decision discrepancy in the “gray zone.”

Interobserver reliability of the Gehweiler classification and treatment strategies of isolated atlas fractures: an internet-based multicenter survey among spine surgeons

Purpose

Atlas (C1) fractures are commonly rated according to the Gehweiler classification, but literature on its reliability is scarce. In addition, evaluation of fracture stability and choosing the most appropriate treatment regime for C1-injuries are challenging. This study aimed to investigate the interobserver reliability of the Gehweiler classification and to identify whether evaluation of fracture stability as well as the treatment of C1-fractures are consistent among spine surgeons.

Methods

Computed tomography images of 34 C1-fractures and case-specific information were presented to six experienced spine surgeons. C1-fractures were graded according to the Gehweiler classification, and the suggested treatment regime was recorded in a questionnaire. For data analyses, SPSS was used, and interobserver reliability was calculated using Fleiss’ kappa (κ) statistics.

Results

We observed a moderate reliability for the Gehweiler classification (κ = 0.50), the evaluation of fracture stability (κ = 0.50), and whether a surgical or non-surgical therapy was indicated (κ = 0.53). Type 1, 2, 3a, and 5 fractures were rated stable and treated non-surgically. Type 3b fractures were rated unstable in 86.7% of cases and treated by surgery in 90% of cases. Atlas osteosynthesis was most frequently recommended (65.4%). Overall, 25.8% of type 4 fractures were rated unstable, and surgery was favoured in 25.8%.

Conclusion

We found a moderate reliability for the Gehweiler classification and for the evaluation of fracture stability. In particular, diverging treatment strategies for type 3b fractures emphasise the necessity of further clinical and biomechanical investigations to determine the optimal treatment of unstable C1-fractures.

Early Spinal Injury Stabilization in Multiple-Injured Patients: Do All Patients Benefit?

Background: Thoracolumbar spine fractures in multiple-injured patients are a common injury pattern. The appropriate timing for the surgical stabilization of vertebral fractures is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to analyse the impact of the timing of spinal surgery in multiple-injured patients both in general and in respect to spinal injury severity. Methods: A retrospective analysis of multiple-injured patients with an associated spinal trauma within the thoracic or lumbar spine (injury severity score (ISS) >16, age >16 years) was performed from January 2012 to December 2016 in two Level I trauma centres. Demographic data, circumstances of the accident, and ISS, as well as time to spinal surgery were documented. The evaluated outcome parameters were length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) (iLOS) and length of stay (LOS) in the hospital, duration of mechanical ventilation, onset of sepsis, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), as well as mortality. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS. Results: A total of 113 multiple-injured patients with spinal stabilization and a complete dataset were included in the study. Of these, 71 multiple-injured patients (63%) presented with an AOSpine A-type spinal injury, whereas 42 (37%) had an AOSpine B-/C-type spinal injury. Forty-nine multiple-injured patients (43.4%) were surgically treated for their spinal injury within 24 h after trauma, and showed a significantly reduced length of stay in the ICU (7.31 vs. 14.56 days; p < 0.001) and hospital stay (23.85 vs. 33.95 days; p = 0.048), as well as a significantly reduced prevalence of sepsis compared to those surgically treated later than 24 h (3 vs. 7; p = 0.023). These adverse effects were even more pronounced in the case where cutoffs were increased to either 72 h or 96 h. Independent risk factors for a delay in spinal surgery were a higher ISS (p = 0.036), a thoracic spine injury (p = 0.001), an AOSpine A-type spinal injury (p = 0.048), and an intact neurological status (p < 0.001). In multiple-injured patients with AOSpine A-type spinal injuries, an increased time to spinal surgery was only an independent risk factor for an increased LOS; however, in multiple-injured patients with B-/C-type spinal injuries, an increased time to spinal surgery was an independent risk factor for increased iLOS, LOS, and the development of sepsis. Conclusion: Our data support the concept of early spinal stabilization in multiple-injured patients with AOSpine B-/C-type injuries, especially of the thoracic spine. However, in multiple-injured patients with AOSpine A-type injuries, the beneficial impact of early spinal stabilization has been overemphasized in former studies, and the benefit should be weighed out against the risk of patients’ deterioration during early spinal stabilization.

The Predictive Value of the Load Sharing Classification Concerning Sagittal Collapse and Posterior Instrumentation Failure: A Systematic Literature Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

In 1994, the Load Sharing Classification (LSC) was introduced to aid the choice of surgical treatment of thoracolumbar spine fractures. Since that time this classification system has been commonly used in the field of spine surgery. However, current literature varies regarding its use and predictive value in relation to implant failure and sagittal collapse. The objective of this study is to assess the predictive value of the LSC concerning the need for anterior stabilization to prevent sagittal collapse and posterior instrumentation failure.

METHODS

An electronic search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed. Inclusion criteria were (1) cohort or clinical trial (2) including patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures (3) whose severity of the fractured vertebrae was assessed by the LSC.

RESULTS

Five thousand eighty-two articles have been identified, of which 21 articles were included for this review. Twelve studies reported no correlation between the LSC and sagittal collapse or instrumentation failure in patients treated with short-segment posterior instrumentation (SSPI). Seven articles found no significant relation; 5 articles found no instrumentation failure at all. The remaining 9 articles experienced failure in patients with a high LSC or recommended a different surgical technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the LSC was originally developed to predict the need for anterior stabilization in addition to SSPI, many studies show that SSPI only can be sufficient in treating thoracolumbar fractures regardless of the LSC. The LSC might have lost its value in predicting sagittal collapse and posterior instrumentation failure.