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

Interobserver Reliability in the Classification of Thoracolumbar Fractures Using the AO Spine TL Injury Classification System Among 22 Clinical Experts in Spine Trauma Care

STUDY DESIGN

Reliability study utilizing 183 injury CT scans by 22 spine trauma experts with assessment of radiographic features, classification of injuries and treatment recommendations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the reliability of the AOSpine TL Injury Classification System (TLICS) including the categories within the classification and the M1 modifier.

METHODS

Kappa and Intraclass correlation coefficients were produced. Associations of various imaging characteristics (comminution, PLC status) and treatment recommendations were analyzed through regression analysis. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used for making predictive algorithms.

RESULTS

Reliability of the AO Spine TLICS at differentiating A3 and A4 injuries (N = 71) (K = .466; 95% CI .458 - .474; P < .001) demonstrated moderate agreement. Similarly, the average intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) amongst A3 and A4 injuries was excellent (ICC = .934; 95% CI .919 - .947; P < .001) and the ICC between individual measures was moderate (ICC = .403; 95% CI .351 - .461; P < .001). The overall agreement on the utilization of the M1 modifier amongst A3 and A4 injuries was fair (K = .161; 95% CI .151 - .171; P < .001). The ICC for PLC status in A3 and A4 injuries averaged across all measures was excellent (ICC = .936; 95% CI .922 - .949; P < .001). The M1 modifier suggests respondents are nearly 40% more confident that the PLC is injured amongst all injuries. The M1 modifier was employed at a higher frequency as injuries were classified higher in the classification system.

CONCLUSIONS

The reliability of surgeons differentiating between A3 and A4 injuries in the AOSpine TLICS is substantial and the utilization of the M1 modifier occurs more frequently with higher grades in the system.

The AO Spine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System and Treatment Algorithm in Decision Making for Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures Without Neurologic Deficit

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the alignment of the AO Spine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification system and treatment algorithm with contemporary surgical decision making.

METHODS

183 cases of thoracolumbar burst fractures were reviewed by 22 AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma experts. These experienced clinicians classified the fracture morphology, integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex and degree of comminution. Management recommendations were collected.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant stepwise increase in rates of operative management with escalating category of injury (P < .001). An excellent correlation existed between recommended expert management and the actual treatment of each injury category: A0/A1/A2 (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.70-1.69, P = .71), A3/4 (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.98-2.66, P = .58) and B1/B2/C (1.00, 95% CI 0.87-1.14, P = .99). Thoracolumbar A4 fractures were more likely to be surgically stabilized than A3 fractures (68.2% vs 30.9%, P < .001). A modifier indicating indeterminate ligamentous injury increased the rate of operative management when comparing type B and C injuries to type A3/A4 injuries (OR 39.19, 95% CI 20.84-73.69, P < .01 vs OR 27.72, 95% CI 14.68-52.33, P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The AO Spine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification system introduces fracture morphology in a rational and hierarchical manner of escalating severity. Thoracolumbar A4 complete burst fractures were more likely to be operatively managed than A3 fractures. Flexion-distraction type B injuries and translational type C injuries were much more likely to have surgery recommended than type A fractures regardless of the M1 modifier. A suspected posterior ligamentous injury increased the likelihood of surgeons favoring surgical stabilization.

Spinal injury in major trauma: Epidemiology of 1104 cases from an Italian first level trauma center

INTRODUCTION

Traumatic spinal injuries are frequent and their management is debated, especially in major trauma patients. This study aims to describe a large population of major trauma patients with vertebral fractures to improve prevention measures and fracture management.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 6274 trauma patients prospectively collected between October 2010 and October 2020. Collected data include demographics, mechanism of trauma, type of imaging, fracture morphology, associated injuries, injury severity score (ISS), survival, and death timing. The statistical analysis focused on mechanism of trauma and the search of predictive factors for critical fractures.

RESULTS

Patients showed a mean age of 47 years and 72.5% were males. Trauma included 59.9% of road accidents and 35.1% of falls. 30.7% patients had at least a severe fracture, while 17.2% had fractures in multiple spinal regions. 13.7% fractures were complicated by spinal cord injury (SCI). The mean ISS of the total population was 26.4 (SD 16.3), with 70.7% patients having an ISS≥16. There is a higher rate of severe fractures in fall cases (40.1%) compared to RA (21.9% to 26.3%). The probability of a severe fracture increased by 164% in the case of fall and by 77% in presence of AIS≥3 associated injury of head/neck while reduced by 34% in presence of extremities associated injuries. Multiple level injuries increased with ISS rise and in the case of extremities associated injuries. The probability of a severe upper cervical fracture increased by 5.95 times in the presence of facial associated injuries. The mean length of stay was 24.7 days and 9.6% of patients died.

CONCLUSIONS

In Italy, road accidents are still the most frequent trauma mechanism and cause more cervico-thoracic fractures, while falls cause more lumbar fractures. Spinal cord injuries represent an indicator of more severe trauma. In motorcyclists or fallers/jumpers, there is a higher risk of severe fractures. When a spinal injury is diagnosed, the probability of a second vertebral fracture is consistent. These data could help the decisional workflow in the management of major trauma patients with vertebral injury.

A Systematic Review of Scoring System Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameters to Predict Outcome in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a potential tool for the objective assessment of spinal cord injury (SCI) because it correlates well with the spatial and temporal extension of spinal cord pathology. This study aimed to systematically identify currently available scoring system based on MRI parameters, including measurement of the spinal cord lesion length in sagittal view (intramedullary lesion length (IMLL)) and morphology of the lesion in axial view (Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC) score).

Methods

A systematic search was conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE database for English-language studies with the keywords "cervical," "spinal cord injury," "scoring system," "scoring," "classification," and "magnetic resonance imaging" to systematically identify the scoring system based on MRI parameters. The main outcomes of interest are the scoring system's inter- and intraobserver reliabilities and its predictive accuracy of neurological outcome.

Results

After assessing the full text and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 13 articles were found to be eligible. The inter- and intraobserver reliabilities were rated as good until perfect for increased signal intensity (ISI), maximum canal compromise (MCC), maximum spinal cord compression (MSCC), BASIC score, cord-canal-area ratio, space available for the cord, and the compression ratio. The weighted mean difference of IML between the group with converted ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) grade and the group without conversion is 31.79 (I² =93%, P=0.008). The percentage of agreement between the initial BASIC score of 4 with AIS grade of A at follow-up is 100%.

Conclusions

Certain MRI parameters, including IML and BASIC score, have good reliability and correlate well with neurological outcome, making them candidates for building simple and objective scoring system for cervical SCI. Level of Evidence: 2A.

ADHD, stimulant medication use, and the risk of fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We performed a meta-analysis to quantify the relationships among a diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the use of stimulant medication, and the risk of fracture. There was a significant positive association between ADHD and the risk of fracture. However, stimulant ADHD medication therapy appears to be associated with a reduced risk of fracture in patients with ADHD.

INTRODUCTION

ADHD is associated with an increased fracture risk due to a lack of impulse control. ADHD medication may have a protective effect via behavior modification. However, previous research found an adverse effect of stimulant use on bone mass. Therefore, this meta-analysis study assessed the relationships among ADHD, the use of stimulant medication, and fracture risk.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE from inception through December 2020. Random-effects models were used to determine overall pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 10 observational studies. Our results showed that ADHD diagnosis is associated with an increased risk of fracture (OR = 1.17; 1.01-1.35, p = 0.035). Notably, a higher risk of fracture (OR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.2-1.58, p < 0.001) was observed in non-stimulant-treated ADHD. However, no significant association, but a trend toward a lower risk, was observed for stimulant-treated ADHD patients compared with non-stimulant-treated ADHD patients (OR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.47-1.03, p = 0.073). In terms of fracture type, non-stimulant-treated ADHD was associated with traumatic fracture (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.54-2.08, p < 0.001) or stress fracture (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.2, p = 0.004) compared to healthy control (HC). In addition, further findings from our systematic review showed that the risk of traumatic (OR = 1, 95% CI 0.88-1.13, p = 0.954) or stress (OR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.62-1.14, p = 0.256) fracture was comparable between treated stimulant-ADHD patients and HC.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with ADHD are at higher risk of fracture than the general population. Stimulant ADHD medication appears to be associated with a lower risk of traumatic fracture but not with a higher risk of stress fracture.