Orthosis for thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurologic deficit: A systematic review of prospective randomized controlled trials

A4 Thoracolumbar Fracture Class Is Associated With a Greater Degree of Vertebral Height Loss in Conservatively Managed Patients

INTRODUCTION

Thoracolumbar (TL) junction fractures are common, often resulting from high-energy trauma or osteoporosis, and may lead to neurological deficits, deformities, or chronic pain. Treatment decisions for neurologically intact patients remain controversial, with nonsurgical management often favored. The AO classification system has been used to characterize thoracolumbar fractures using fracture morphology and clinical factors affecting clinical decision-making for fracture management. This study aims to assess the radiographic outcomes of utilizing a thoracolumbosacral orthosis (TLSO) brace in neurologically intact patients with TL fractures based on the AO classification system.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 43 patients was conducted using data from the VCU Spine Database on patients with TL fractures managed conservatively with a TLSO brace from 2010 to 2019. Demographic variables and radiographic measurements of anterior height loss were analyzed and stratified by AO fracture class.

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed in anterior height loss between AO fracture classes, with A4 fractures showing significantly greater anterior height loss at initial presentation (27.6 + 4.8%) compared to A1/A2 (16.1 + 2.2%; p=0.049). At follow up, A4 fractures had a significantly greater anterior height loss (40.2 + 6.6%) than both the A1/A2 (22.4 + 2.9%; p=0.029) and A3 fracture classes (20.5 + 3.6; p=0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

The study highlights significant differences in anterior height loss among AO fracture classes, suggesting varying degrees of severity and potential implications for clinical management. While conservative treatment with TLSO braces may provide pain relief, surgical intervention may offer better structural recovery, especially in more severe fractures. Conservative management of TL fractures with TLSO braces may result in greater anterior height loss, particularly in A4 fractures, emphasizing the need for individualized treatment decisions. Further research, including prospective studies, is warranted to validate these findings and guide clinical practice effectively.

Bracing and taping interventions for individuals with vertebral fragility fractures: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with GRADE assessment

This systematic review analyzes the effects of bracing and taping after osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Spinal orthose may have positive effects on pain, but the evidence is of very low certainty. Clinical judgment is recommended when prescribing spinal orthoses.

PURPOSE

To examine the effects of bracing and taping interventions on pain, physical functioning, health-related quality of life, back extensor strength, kyphosis curvature, and adverse events in individuals with vertebral fragility fractures.

METHODS

Four databases were searched from inception up to January 2022. We included randomized controlled trials testing the effect of bracing or taping interventions compared with a non-intervention control in adults ≥ 45 years with vertebral fragility fractures. Narrative syntheses were presented for all the outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Three studies were included. Soft bracing interventions exhibited inconsistent effects on pain. One study showed no difference between groups, and another study should a decrease in pain in the soft bracing group compared to the control group. Rigid bracing interventions did not have a significant change in pain between the control and intervention groups. One study demonstrated a decrease in pain at rest (VAS: - 10.8 ± 19.3) and during movement (VAS: - 20.9 ± 29.8) after a taping intervention. The other outcomes were not consistent across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal orthoses may improve pain in people with vertebral fractures; however, we cannot draw definitive conclusions on the efficacy or harms of bracing or taping due to the very low certainty evidence and the small number of studies. Effects on other outcomes are uncertain.

Rate and Predictors of Failure in the Conservative Management of Stable Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

Management of stable traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures in neurologically-intact patients remains controversial. Conservative management fails in a subset of patients who require subsequent surgical fixation. The aim of this review is to (1) determine the rate of conservative management failure, and (2) analyze predictive factors at admission influencing conservative management failure.

METHODS

A systematic review adhering to PRISMA guidelines was performed. Studies with data pertaining to traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures without posterior osteoligamentous injury (e.g. AO Type A3/A4) and/or the rate and predictive factors of conservative management failure were included. Risk of bias appraisal was performed. Pooled analysis of rates of failure was performed with qualitative analysis of predictors of conservative management failure.

RESULTS

16 articles were included in this review (11 pertaining to rate of conservative management failure, 5 pertaining to predictive risk factors). Rate of failure of conservative management from a pooled analysis of 601 patients is 9.2% (95% CI: 4.5%-13.9%). Admission factors predictive of conservative management failure include age, greater initial kyphotic angle, greater initial interpedicular distance, smaller initial residual canal size, greater Load Sharing Classification (LSC) score and greater admission Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores.

CONCLUSION

A proportion (9.2%) of conservatively managed, neurologically-intact thoracolumbar burst fractures fail conservative management. Among other factors, age, kyphotic angle, residual canal area and interpedicular distance should be investigated in prospective studies to identify the subset of patients prone to failure of conservative management. Surgical management should be carefully considered in patients with the above risk factors.

Low-value injury care in the adult orthopaedic trauma population: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Fifteen potentially low value practices in adult orthopaedic trauma care were previously identified in a scoping review. The aim of this study was to synthesise the evidence on these practices.

METHODS

We searched four databases for systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case series that assessed the effectiveness of selected practices. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews version 2 (AMSTAR-2) for systematic reviews and the Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series. We evaluated risk of bias with the Cochrane revised tool for RCTs and the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions tool for observational studies. We summarised findings with measures of frequency and association for primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 30,670 records screened, 70 studies were retained. We identified high-level evidence of lack of effectiveness or harm for routine initial imaging of ankle injury, orthosis for A0-A3 thoracolumbar burst fracture in patients <60 years of age, cast or splint immobilisation for suspected scaphoid fracture negative on MRI or confirmed fifth metacarpal neck fracture, and routine follow-up imaging for distal radius and ankles fractures. However, evidence was mostly based on studies of low methodological quality or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

In this review, we identified clinical practices in orthopaedic injury care which are not supported by current evidence and whose use may be questioned. In future research, we should measure their frequency, assess practice variations and evaluate root causes to identify practices that could be targeted for de-implementation.

Establishing the Injury Severity of Subaxial Cervical Spine Trauma: Validating the Hierarchical Nature of the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System

STUDY DESIGN

Global cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to validate the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification by examining the perceived injury severity by surgeon across AO geographical regions and practice experience.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Previous subaxial cervical spine injury classifications have been limited by subpar interobserver reliability and clinical applicability. In an attempt to create a universally validated scheme with prognostic value, AO Spine established a subaxial cervical spine injury classification involving four elements: injury morphology, facet injury involvement, neurologic status, and case-specific modifiers.

METHODS

A survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. Respondents graded the severity of each variable of the classification system on a scale from zero (low severity) to 100 (high severity). Primary outcome was to assess differences in perceived injury severity for each injury type over geographic regions and level of practice experience.

RESULTS

A total of 189 responses were received. Overall, the classification system exhibited a hierarchical progression in subtype injury severity scores. Only three subtypes showed a significant difference in injury severity score among geographic regions: F3 (floating lateral mass fracture, P = 0.04), N3 (incomplete spinal cord injury, P = 0.03), and M2 (critical disk herniation, P = 0.04). When stratified by surgeon experience, pairwise comparison showed only two morphological subtypes, B1 (bony posterior tension band injury, P = 0.02) and F2 (unstable facet fracture, P = 0.03), and one neurologic subtype (N3, P = 0.02) exhibited a significant difference in injury severity score.

CONCLUSION

The AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System has shown to be reliable and suitable for proper patient management. The study shows this classification is substantially generalizable by geographic region and surgeon experience, and provides a consistent method of communication among physicians while covering the majority of subaxial cervical spine traumatic injuries.Level of Evidence: 4.

Review of Current Spinal Robotic Orthoses

Osteoporotic spine fractures (OSF) are common sequelae of osteoporosis. OSF are directly correlated with increasing age and incidence of osteoporosis. OSF are treated conservatively or surgically. Associated acute pain, chronic disabilities, and progressive deformities are well documented. Conservative measures include a combination of initial bed rest, analgesia, early physiotherapy, and a spinal brace (orthosis), with the aim for early rehabilitation to prevent complications of immobile state. Spinal bracing is commonly used for symptomatic management of OSF. While traditional spinal braces aim to maintain the neutral spinal alignment and reduce the axial loading on the fractured vertebrae, they are well known for complications including discomfort with reduced compliance, atrophy of paraspinal muscles, and restriction of chest expansion leading to chest infections. Exoskeletons have been developed to passively assist and actively augment human movements with different types of actuators. Flexible, versatile spinal exoskeletons are designed to better support the spine. As new technologies enable the development of motorized wearable exoskeletons, several types have been introduced into the medical field application. We have provided a thorough review of the current spinal robotic technologies in this paper. The shortcomings in the current spinal exoskeletons were identified. Their limitations on the use for patients with OSF with potential improvement strategies were discussed. With our current knowledge of spinal orthosis for conservatively managed OSF, a semi-rigid backpack style thoracolumbar spinal robotic orthosis will reduce spinal bone stress and improve back muscle support. This will lead to back pain reduction, improved posture, and overall mobility. Early mobilization is an important part of management of patients with OSF as it reduces the chance of developing complications related to their immobile state for patients with OSF, which will be helpful for their recovery.

Orthosis in Thoracolumbar Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial (RCT).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate radiological and clinical outcomes of acute traumatic thoracolumbar fractures in skeletally mature patients treated with orthosis, versus no immobilization.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Orthosis is traditionally used in conservative treatment of thoracolumbar fractures. However, recent studies suggest no benefit, and a possible negative impact in recovery.

METHODS

Databases were searched from inception to June 2019. Studies were selected in two phases by two blinded reviewers; disagreements were solved by consensus. Inclusion criteria were: RCT; only patients with acute traumatic thoracolumbar fractures; primary conservative treatment; comparison between orthosis and no orthosis. Exclusion criteria were inclusion of nonacute fractures, patients with other significant known diseases and comparison of groups different than use of an orthosis. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment. Fixed-effects models were used upon no heterogeneity, and random-effects model in the remaining cases. A previous plan for extraction of radiological (kyphosis progression; loss of anterior height) and clinical (pain; disability; length of stay) outcomes was applied. PRISMA guidelines were followed.

RESULTS

Eight articles/five studies were included (267 participants). None reported significant differences in pain, kyphosis progression, and loss of anterior height. One reported a better ODI with orthosis at 12 but not at 24 weeks. No other study reported differences in disability. All authors concluded an equivalence between treatments.Meta-analysis showed a significant increase of 3.47days (95% confidence interval 1.35-5.60) in mean admission time in orthosis group. No differences were found in kyphosis at 6 and 12 months; kyphosis progression between 0 to 6 and 0 to 12 months; loss of anterior height 0 to 6 months; VAS for pain at 6 months; VAS change 0 to 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Orthosis seems to add no benefit in conservative treatment of acute thoracolumbar fractures. This should be considered in guidelines and reviews of health care policies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Reducing Radiation and Lowering Costs With a Standardized Care Pathway for Nonoperative Thoracolumbar Fractures

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE

There is marked variation in the management of nonoperative thoracolumbar (TL) compression and burst fractures. This was a quality improvement study designed to establish a standardized care pathway for TL fractures treated with bracing, and to then evaluate differences in radiographs, length of stay (LOS), and cost before and after the pathway.

METHODS

A standardized pathway was established for management of nonoperative TL burst and compression fractures (AOSpine classification type A1-A4 fractures). Bracing, radiographs, costs, complications, and LOS before and after pathway adoption were analyzed. Differences between the neurosurgery and orthopedic spine services were compared.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2015, 406 nonoperative burst and compression TL fractures were identified. A total of 183 (45.1%) were braced, 60.6% with a custom-made thoracolumbosacral orthosis (TLSO) and 39.4% with an off-the-shelf TLSO. The number of radiographs significantly reduced after initiation of the pathway (3.23 vs 2.63, P = .010). A total of 98.6% of braces were custom-made before the pathway; 69.6% were off-the-shelf after the pathway. The total cost for braced patients after pathway adoption decreased from $10 462.36 to $8928.58 (P = .078). Brace-associated costs were significantly less for off-the-shelf TSLO versus custom TLSO ($1352.41 vs $3719.53, respectively, P < .001). The mean LOS and complication rate did not change significantly following pathway adoption. The orthopedic spine service braced less frequently than the neurosurgery service (40.7% vs 52.2%, P = .023).

CONCLUSIONS

Standardized care pathways can reduce cost and radiation exposure without increasing complication rates in nonoperative management of thoracolumbar compression and burst fractures.

Post-operative bracing after pedicle screw fixation for thoracolumbar burst fractures: A cost-effectiveness study

PURPOSE

While frequently prescribed to patients following fixation for spine trauma, the utility of spinal orthoses during the post-operative period is poorly described in the literature. In this study, we calculated rates of reoperation and performed a decision analysis to determine the utility of bracing following pedicle screw fixation for thoracic and lumbar burst fractures.

METHODS

Pubmed was searched for articles published between 2005 and 2015 for terms related to pedicle screw fixation of thoracolumbar fractures. Additionally, a database of neurosurgical patients operated on within the authors institution was also used in the analysis. Incidences of significant adverse events (wound revision for either dehiscence or infection or re-operation for non-union or instability due to hardware failure) were determined. Pooled means and variances of reported parameters were obtained using a random-effects, inverse variance meta-analytic model for observational data. Utilities for surgical outcome and complications were assigned using previously published values.

RESULTS

Of the 225 abstracts reviewed, 48 articles were included in the study, yielding a total of 1957 patients. After including patients from the institutional registry, together a total of 2081 patients were included in the final analysis, 1328 of whom were braced. Non-braced patients were older then braced patients, although this only approached significance (p=0.051). Braced patients had significantly lower rates of re-operation for non-union or clinically significant hardware failure (1.3% vs. 1.8%, p<0.001) although the groups had comparable rates of operative wound dehiscence and infection (p=1.000). These two approaches yielded comparable utility scores (p=0.120). Costs between braced and non-braced patients were comparable excluding the cost of the brace (p=0.256); hence, the added cost of the brace suggests that bracing post-operatively is not a cost effective measure.

CONCLUSIONS

Bracing following operative stabilization of thoracolumbar fracture does not significantly improve stability, nor does it increase wound complications. Moreover, our data suggests that post-operative bracing may not be a cost-effective measure.

Does Operative or Nonoperative Treatment Achieve Better Results in A3 and A4 Spinal Fractures Without Neurological Deficit?: Systematic Literature Review With Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review with meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Thoracolumbar (TL) fractures can be treated conservatively or surgically. Especially, the treatment strategy for incomplete and complete TL burst fractures (A3 and A4, AOSpine classification) in neurologically intact patients remains controversial. The aim of this work was to collate the clinical evidence on the respective treatment modalities.

METHODS

Searches were performed in PubMed and the Web of Science. Clinical and radiological outcome data were collected. For studies comparing operative with nonoperative treatment, the standardized mean differences (SMD) for disability and pain were calculated and methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed.

RESULTS

From 1929 initial matches, 12 were eligible. Four of these compared surgical with conservative treatment. A comparative analysis of radiological results was not possible due to a lack of uniform reporting. Differences in clinical outcomes at follow-up were small, both between studies and between treatment groups. The SMD was 0.00 (95% CI -0.072, 0.72) for disability and -0.05 (95% CI -0.91, 0.81) for pain. Methodological quality was high in most studies and no evidence of publication bias was revealed.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find differences in disability or pain outcomes between operative and nonoperative treatment of A3 and A4 TL fractures in neurologically intact patients. Notwithstanding, the available scores have been developed and validated for degenerative diseases; thus, their suitability in trauma may be questionable. Specific and uniform outcome parameters need to be defined and enforced for the evaluation of TL trauma.

Thoracolumbar fractures without neurological impairment: A review of diagnosis and treatment

An appropriate protocol and unified management of thoracolumbar fractures without neurological impairment has not been well defined.

This review attempts to elucidate some controversies regarding diagnostic tools, the ability to define the most appropriate treatment of classification systems and the evidence for conservative and surgical methods based on the recent literature.

Cite this article: Vilà-Canet G, García de Frutos A, Covaro A, Ubierna MT, Caceres E. Thoracolumbar fractures without neurological impairment: a review of diagnosis and treatment. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:332-338. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.000029

Spinal Orthoses for Vertebral Osteoporosis and Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the evidence of effectiveness of spinal orthoses for adults with vertebral osteoporosis.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a systematic literature search using the databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Cochrane Library from January 1995 to October 2014.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers evaluated eligibility. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), pilot RCTs, and prospective nonrandomized controlled studies of spinal orthoses for people with vertebral osteoporosis or osteopenia with and without osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF) that examined outcomes related to fracture consolidation, pain, strength, posture, balance, physical function, quality of life, and complications were eligible.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated methodological quality using a domain-based risk-of-bias approach.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twelve studies were included: 8 RCTs or pilot RCTs and 4 nonrandomized studies involving 626 participants. Three studies (n=153) evaluated orthoses after acute OVF; none were of high quality. Complications were highest with rigid orthoses. Evidence that orthoses could affect vertebral deformity was lacking. Nine studies (n=473) of varying quality considered orthoses in subacute and longer rehabilitation. Three suggested a semirigid backpack thoracolumbar orthosis (TLO) could benefit strength, pain, posture, and quality of life. One found a weighted kypho-orthosis (WKO) improved balance.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence about orthoses after acute OVF is inconclusive; better evidence of efficacy is needed, particularly when considering complications. The promising evidence regarding the backpack TLO and WKO needs to be explored further in studies of sufficient size and quality that include men.

Short Segment Spinal Instrumentation With Index Vertebra Pedicle Screw Placement for Pathologies Involving the Anterior and Middle Vertebral Column Is as Effective as Long Segment Stabilization With Cage Reconstruction: A Biomechanical Study

STUDY DESIGN

An in vitro, cadaveric biomechanical study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to compare single-segment posterior instrumentation and fracture-level screws with single/multilevel posterior fixation and corpectomy in a simulated, unstable burst fracture model.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The optimal extent of instrumentation for surgical cases of non-neoplastic vertebral body pathologies remains uncertain. Although several clinical studies demonstrate advantages of short segment instrumentation with index-level screws over more extensive corpectomy and anterior-posterior techniques, a comprehensive biomechanical comparison of these techniques is currently lacking.

METHODS

Six bovine spines (T11-L5) were tested in flexion, extension, lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) following simulated burst fracture at L2. Posterior instrumentation included 1 level above/below (1LF) and 2 levels above/below fracture level (2LF), intermediate or index screws at fracture level (FF), and cross-connectors above/below fracture level (CC). Anterior corpectomy devices included expandable corpectomy spacers with/without integrated screws, ACDi and ACD, respectively FORTIFY-Integrated/FORTIFY; Globus Medical, Inc., PA. Constructs were tested in the following order: (1) Intact; (2) 1LF; (3) 1LF and CC; (4) 1LF and FF; (5) 1LF, CC, and FF; (6) 2LF; (7) 2LF and CC; (8) 2LF and FF; (9) 2LF, CC, and FF; (10) 2LF and ACD; (11) 2LF, ACD, and CC; (12) 1LF and ACDi; (13) 1LF, ACDi, and CC.

RESULTS

During flexion, all constructs except 1LF reduced motion relative to intact (P ≤ 0.05). Anterior support was most stable, but no differences were found between constructs (P ≥ 0.05). Every construct reduced motion in extension, though no differences were found between constructs and intact (P ≥ 0.05). During LB, all constructs reduced motion relative to intact (P ≤ 0.05); 2LF constructs further reduced motion (P ≤ 0.05). No construct returned AR motion to intact, with significant increases in 1LF and ACDi, 2LF and ACD, and 2LF, ACD, and CC (P ≤ 0.05). Cross-connectors and fracture screws reinforced each other in posterior-only constructs, providing maximum stability (P ≥ 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This biomechanical comparison study found no significant superiority of combined anterior-posterior constructs over short segment fracture screw fixation, only multilevel posterior instrumentation with and without anterior support, providing increased stability in LB. Biomechanical equivalency suggests that short segment fracture screw intervention may provide appropriate stabilization for non-neoplastic pathologies involving the anterior and middle vertebral columns.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Is there a regional difference in morphology interpretation of A3 and A4 fractures among different cultures?

OBJECT The aim of this study was to determine if the ability of a surgeon to correctly classify A3 (burst fractures with a single endplate involved) and A4 (burst fractures with both endplates involved) fractures is affected by either the region or the experience of the surgeon. METHODS A survey was sent to 100 AOSpine members from all 6 AO regions of the world (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East) who had no prior knowledge of the new AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System. Respondents were asked to classify 25 cases, including 6 thoracolumbar burst fractures (A3 or A4). This study focuses on the effect of region and experience on surgeons' ability to properly classify these 2 controversial fracture variants. RESULTS All 100 surveyed surgeons completed the survey, and no significant regional (p > 0.50) or experiential (p > 0.21) variability in the ability to correctly classify burst fractures was identified; however, surgeons from all regions and with all levels of experience were more likely to correctly classify A3 fractures than A4 fractures (p < 0.01). Further analysis demonstrated that no region predisposed surgeons to increasing their assessment of severity of burst fractures. CONCLUSIONS A3 and A4 fractures are the most difficult 2 fractures to correctly classify, but this is not affected by the region or experience of the surgeon; therefore, regional variations in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures (A3 and A4) is not due to differing radiographic interpretation of the fractures.

A Worldwide Analysis of the Reliability and Perceived Importance of an Injury to the Posterior Ligamentous Complex in AO Type A Fractures

Study Design Survey of spine surgeons. Objective To determine the reliability with which international spine surgeons identify a posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) injury in a patient with a compression-type vertebral body fracture (type A). Methods A survey was sent to all AOSpine members from the six AO regions of the world. The survey consisted of 10 cases of type A fractures (2 subtype A1, 2 subtype A2, 3 subtype A3, and 3 subtype A4 fractures) with appropriate imaging (plain radiographs, computed tomography, and/or magnetic resonance imaging), and the respondent was asked to identify fractures with a PLC disruption, as well as to indicate if the integrity of the PLC would affect their treatment recommendation. Results Five hundred twenty-nine spine surgeons from all six AO regions of the world completed the survey. The overall interobserver reliability in determining the integrity of the PLC was slight (kappa = 0.11). No substantial regional or experiential difference was identified in determining PLC integrity or its absence; however, a regional difference was identified (p < 0.001) in how PLC integrity influenced the treatment of type A fractures. Conclusion The results of this survey indicate that there is only slight international reliability in determining the integrity of the PLC in type A fractures. Although the biomechanical importance of the PLC is not in doubt, the inability to reliably determine the integrity of the PLC may limit the utility of the M1 modifier in the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System.

Establishing the injury severity of thoracolumbar trauma: confirmation of the hierarchical structure of the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System

STUDY DESIGN

Survey of spine surgeons.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a validated regional and global injury severity scoring system for thoracolumbar trauma.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System was recently published and combines elements of both the Magerl system and the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System; however, the injury severity of each fracture has yet to be established.

METHODS

A survey was sent to 100 AOSpine members from all 6 AO regions of the world (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Each respondent was asked to numerically grade the severity of each variable of the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System including the morphology, neurological grade, and patient specific modifiers. A grade of zero was considered to be not severe at all, and a grade of 100 was the most severe injury possible.

RESULTS

Seventy-four AOSpine surgeons from all 6 AO regions of the world numerically graded the severity of each variable of the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System to establish the injury severity score. The reported fracture severity increased significantly (P < 0.0001) as the subtypes of fracture type A and type B increased, and a significant difference (P < 0.0001) in severity was established for burst fractures with involvement of 2 versus 1 endplates. Finally, no regional or experiential difference in severity or classification was identified.

CONCLUSION

Development of a globally applicable injury severity scoring system for thoracolumbar trauma is possible. This study demonstrates no regional or experiential difference in perceived severity or thoracolumbar spine trauma. The AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System provides a logical approach to assessing these injuries and enables rational strategies for treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.