OBJECTIVE Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participants’ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms. © 2022 The authors.

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 ¼ 0.04), N3 (incomplete spinal cord injury, P ¼ 0.03), and M2 (critical disk herniation, P ¼ 0.04). When stratified by surgeon experience, pairwise comparison showed only two morphological subtypes, B1 (bony posterior tension band injury, P ¼ 0.02) and F2 (unstable facet fracture, P ¼ 0.03), and one neurologic subtype (N3, P ¼ 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. © 2021 The Author(s).

Study Design. Cross-sectional survey. Objective. To determine the influence of surgeons’ level of experience and subspeciality training on the reliability, reproducibility, and accuracy of sacral fracture classification using the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen Spine Sacral Classification System. Summary of Background Data. A surgeons’ level of experience or subspecialty may have a significant effect on the reliability and accuracy of sacral classification given various levels of comfort with imaging assessment required for accurate diagnosis and classification. Methods. High-resolution computerized tomography (CT) images from 26 cases were assessed on two separate occasions by 172 investigators representing a diverse array of surgical subspecialities (general orthopedics, neurosurgery, orthopedic spine, orthopedic trauma) and experience ([removed]20yrs). Reliability and reproducibility were calculated with Cohen kappa coefficient (k) and gold standard classification agreement was determined for each fracture morphology and subtype and stratified by experience and subspeciality. Results. Respondents achieved an overall k ¼ 0.87 for morphology and k ¼ 0.77 for subtype classification, representing excellent and substantial intraobserver reproducibility, respectively. Respondents from all four practice experience groups demonstrated excellent interobserver reliability when classifying overall morphology (k ¼ 0.842/0.850, Assessment 1/Assessment 2) and substantial interobserver reliability in overall subtype (k ¼ 0.719/ 0.751) in both assessments. General orthopedists, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic spine surgeons exhibited excellent interobserver reliability in overall morphology classification and substantial interobserver reliability in overall subtype classification. Surgeons in each experience category and subspecialty correctly classified fracture morphology in over 90% of cases and fracture subtype in over 80% of cases according to the gold standard. Correct overall classification of fracture morphology (Assessment 1: P ¼ 0.024, Assessment 2: P ¼ 0.006) and subtype (P₂ < 0.001) differed significantly by years of experience but not by subspecialty. Conclusion. Overall, the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen spine sacral classification system appears to be universally applicable among surgeons of various subspecialties and levels of experience with acceptable reliability, reproducibility, and accuracy. © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Purpose: The management of cervical facet dislocation injuries remains controversial. The main purpose of this investigation was to identify whether a surgeon’s geographic location or years in practice influences their preferred management of traumatic cervical facet dislocation injuries. Methods: A survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. The survey included clinical case scenarios of cervical facet dislocation injuries and asked responders to select preferences among various diagnostic and management options. Results: A total of 189 complete responses were received. Over 50% of responding surgeons in each region elected to initiate management of cervical facet dislocation injuries with an MRI, with 6 case exceptions. Overall, there was considerable agreement between American and European responders regarding management of these injuries, with only 3 cases exhibiting a significant difference. Additionally, results also exhibited considerable management agreement between those with ≤ 10 and > 10 years of practice experience, with only 2 case exceptions noted. Conclusion: More than half of responders, regardless of geographical location or practice experience, identified MRI as a screening imaging modality when managing cervical facet dislocation injuries, regardless of the status of the spinal cord and prior to any additional intervention. Additionally, a majority of surgeons would elect an anterior approach for the surgical management of these injuries. The study found overall agreement in management preferences of cervical facet dislocation injuries around the globe. © 2020, The Author(s).

Purpose: To determine the variation in the global treatment practices for subaxial unilateral cervical spine facet fractures based on surgeon experience, practice setting, and surgical subspecialty. Methods: A survey was sent to 272 members of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System Validation Group worldwide. Questions surveyed surgeon preferences with regard to diagnostic work-up and treatment of fracture types F1–F3, according to the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System, with various associated neurologic injuries. Results: A total of 161 responses were received. Academic surgeons use the facet portion of the AO Spine classification system less frequently (61.6%) compared to hospital-employed and private practice surgeons (81.1% and 81.8%, respectively) (p = 0.029). The overall consensus was in favor of operative treatment for any facet fracture with radicular symptoms (N2) and for any fractures categorized as F2N2 and above. For F3N0 fractures, significantly less surgeons from Africa/Asia/Middle East (49%) and Europe (59.2%) chose operative treatment than from North/Latin/South America (74.1%) (p = 0.025). For F3N1 fractures, significantly less surgeons from Africa/Asia/Middle East (52%) and Europe (63.3%) recommended operative treatment than from North/Latin/South America (84.5%) (p = 0.001). More than 95% of surgeons included CT in their work-up of facet fractures, regardless of the type. No statistically significant differences were seen in the need for MRI to decide treatment. Conclusion: Considerable agreement exists between surgeon preferences with regard to unilateral facet fracture management with few exceptions. F2N2 fracture subtypes and subtypes with radiculopathy (N2) appear to be the threshold for operative treatment. © 2021, The Author(s).

STUDY DESIGN: Delphi expert panel consensus. OBJECTIVE: To obtain expert consensus on best practices for appropriate telemedicine utilization in spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several studies have shown high patient satisfaction associated with telemedicine during the COVID-19 peak pandemic period as well as after easing of restrictions. As this technology will most likely continue to be employed, there is a need to define appropriate utilization. METHODS: An expert panel consisting of 27 spine surgeons from various countries was assembled in February 2021. A two-round consensus-based Delphi method was used to generate consensus statements on various aspects of telemedicine (separated as video visits or audio visits) including themes, such as patient location and impact of patient diagnosis, on assessment of new patients. Topics with ≥75% agreement were categorized as having achieved a consensus. RESULTS: The expert panel reviewed a total of 59 statements. Of these, 32 achieved consensus. The panel had consensus that video visits could be utilized regardless of patient location and that video visits are appropriate for evaluating as well as indicating for surgery multiple common spine pathologies, such as lumbar stenosis, lumbar radiculopathy, and cervical radiculopathy. Finally, the panel had consensus that video visits could be appropriate for a variety of visit types including early, midterm, longer term postoperative follow-up, follow-up for imaging review, and follow-up after an intervention (i.e., physical therapy, injection). CONCLUSION: Although telemedicine was initially introduced out of necessity, this technology most likely will remain due to evidence of high patient satisfaction and significant cost savings. This study was able to provide a framework for appropriate telemedicine utilization in spine surgery from a panel of experts. However, several questions remain for future research, such as whether or not an in-person consultation is necessary prior to surgery and which physical exam maneuvers are appropriate for telemedicine.Level of Evidence: 4. Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Objective: To conduct a bibliometric review of literature on posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) injury in thoracolumbar trauma to guide future research. Methods: A keyword-based search was conducted from January 2000 to September 2021 using the Scopus database. Relevant publications were analyzed for year of publication, authorship, publishing journal, institution and country of origin, subject matter, and article type. Content analysis of clinical articles was also performed, analyzed for sample size, retrospective versus prospective study design, single-center versus multicenter study, and level of evidence. Results: The search yielded 262 publications published in 61 journals by 537 authors from 162 institutions and 29 countries. Thomas Jefferson University, University of Calgary, and University of Toronto had the largest number of publications related to posterior ligamentous complex injury. Authors from the United States, Canada, and China were the most frequent contributors in terms of the number of publications. Spine was the most prolific and top-cited journal, and A.R. Vaccaro was the most prolific author. The most cited publication was “A New Classification of Thoracolumbar Injuries: The Importance of Injury Morphology, the Integrity of the Posterior Ligamentous Complex, and Neurologic Status” by Vaccaro et al. Most of the publications were case studies, with diagnostic accuracy being the most frequently discussed topic. The sample size for a large portion of the case series was <50. Most case series were retrospective studies conducted at a single center. Conclusions: Our review provides an extensive list of the most historically significant thoracolumbar PLC injury articles, acknowledging key contributions made to the advancement of this research area. © 2022 Elsevier Inc.

Study design: Complete audit cycle. Introduction: To highlight the unjustified overuse of perioperative antibiotics in clean non-instrumented lumbar spinal surgeries. To convince orthopedic surgeons in a methodological way of local field comparison between common practice on the use of perioperative antibiotics prophylaxis (PAP) in clean non-instrumented lumbar spinal surgeries and the ideal practice according to "The guidelines published by North American Spine Society (NASS)". Methods: A complete audit cycle had been done. One hundred and eight patients underwent clean non-instrumented lumbar spinal surgeries in a tertiary spine center, during the period from the 1st of April to the 31st of June 2017 (primary audit period) and during the period from the 8th of May to the 21st of November 2018 (re-audit period). Group I: audit group (n = 54) was given the usual regimen (IV first-generation cephalosporin for 1-6 days, followed by oral antibiotics, till the removal of stitches) and Group II: re-audit group (n = 54) received only the IV antibiotics for one day). The study protocol was approved by our institution's Ethical Committee (17100582). Results: This study showed a wide gap between international standards and local prescribing practices and calls for multiple interventions to improve our practice. Out of the 108 patients, only one case (1.85%) developed surgical site infection (SSI) in the audit group (Group I). The difference in infection rates between the two groups was statistically insignificant. Conclusion: A single-day postoperative dose of antibiotics effectively prevents postoperative wound infection following non-instrumented lumbar spinal surgery and is not associated with a higher infection rate. © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2021.

Study Design: Cross-sectional, anonymous, international survey. Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the rapid adoption of telemedicine in spine surgery. This study sought to determine the extent of adoption and global perspectives on telemedicine in spine surgery. Methods: All members of AO Spine International were emailed an anonymous survey covering the participant’s experiences with and perceptions of telemedicine. Descriptive statistics were used to depict responses. Responses were compared among regions. Results: 485 spine surgeons participated in the survey. Telemedicine usage rose from [removed]39.0% of all visits. A majority of providers (60.5%) performed at least one telemedicine visit. The format of “telemedicine” varied widely by region: European (50.0%) and African (45.2%) surgeons were more likely to use phone calls, whereas North (66.7%) and South American (77.0%) surgeons more commonly used video (P < 0.001). North American providers used telemedicine the most during COVID-19 (>60.0% of all visits). 81.9% of all providers “agreed/strongly agreed” telemedicine was easy to use. Respondents tended to “agree” that imaging review, the initial appointment, and postoperative care could be performed using telemedicine. Almost all (95.4%) surgeons preferred at least one in-person visit prior to the day of surgery. Conclusion: Our study noted significant geographical differences in the rate of telemedicine adoption and the platform of telemedicine utilized. The results suggest a significant increase in telemedicine utilization, particularly in North America. Spine surgeons found telemedicine feasible for imaging review, initial visits, and follow-up visits although the vast majority still preferred at least one in-person preoperative visit. © The Author(s) 2021.