Search

Purpose The AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) was developed for people with spine trauma and minor or no neurological impairment. The purpose is to investigate health professionals’ perspective on the applicability of the AO Spine PROST for people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI), using a discussion meeting and international survey study. Methods A discussion meeting with SCI rehabilitation physicians in the Netherlands was performed, followed by a worldwide online survey among the AO Spine International community, involved in the care of people with SCI. Participants rated the comprehensibility, relevance, acceptability, feasibility and completeness of the AO Spine PROST on a 1–5 point scale (5 most positive). Comments could be provided per question. Results The discussion meeting was attended by 13 SCI rehabilitation physicians. The survey was completed by 196 participants. Comprehensibility (mean ± SD: 4.1 ± 0.8), acceptability (4.0 ± 0.8), relevance (3.9 ± 0.8), completeness (3.9 ± 0.8), and feasibility (4.1 ± 0.7) of the AO Spine PROST were rated positively for use in people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. Only a few participants questioned the relevance of items on the lower extremities (e.g., walking) or missed items on pulmonary functioning and complications. Some recommendations were made for improvement in instructions, terminology and examples of the tool. Conclusion Health professionals found the AO Spine PROST generally applicable for people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. This study provides further evidence for the use of the AO Spine PROST in spine trauma care, rehabilitation and research, as well as suggestions for its further development.

Purpose Globally, spine disorders are the leading cause of disability, affecting more than half a billion individuals. However, less than 50% of G20 countries specifically identify spine health within their public policy priorities. Therefore, it is crucial to raise awareness among policy makers of the disabling effect of spine disorders and their impact on the economic welfare of G20 nations. In 2019, SPINE20 was established as the leading advocacy group to bring global attention to spine disorders. Methods Recommendations were developed through two Delphi methods with international and multi-professional panels. Results In 2022, seven recommendations were delivered to the leaders of G20 countries, urging them to: Develop action plans to provide universal access to evidence-based spine care that incorporates the needs of minorities and vulnerable populations. Invest in the development of sustainable human resource capacity, through multisectoral and inter-professional competency-based education and training to promote evidence-based approaches to spine care, and to build an appropriate healthcare working environment that optimizes the delivery of safe health services. Develop policies using the best available evidence to properly manage spine disorders and to prolong functional healthy life expectancy in the era of an aging population. Create a competent workforce and improve the healthcare infrastructure/facilities including equipment to provide evidence-based inter-professional rehabilitation services to patients with spinal cord injury throughout their continuum of care. Build collaborative and innovative translational research capacity within national, regional, and global healthcare systems for state-of-the-art and cost-effective spine care across the healthcare continuum ensuring equality, diversity, and inclusion of all stakeholders. Develop international consensus statements on patient outcomes and how they can be used to define and develop pathways for value-based care. Recognize that intervening on determinants of health including physical activity, nutrition, physical and psychosocial workplace environment, and smoking-free lifestyle can reduce the burden of spine disabilities and improve the health status and wellness of the population. At the third SPINE20 summit 2022 which took place in Bali, Indonesia, in August 2022, 17 associations endorsed its recommendations. Conclusion SPINE20 advocacy efforts focus on developing public policy recommendations to improve the health, welfare, and wellness of all who suffer from spinal pain and disability. We propose that focusing on facilitating access to systems that prioritize value-based care delivered by a competent healthcare workforce will reduce disability and improve the productivity of the G20 nations.

Purpose The focus of SPINE20 is to develop evidence-based policy recommendations for the G20 countries to work with governments to reduce the burden of spine disease, and disability. Methods On September 17–18, 2021, SPINE20 held its annual meeting in Rome, Italy. Prior to the meeting, the SPINE20 created six proposed recommendations. These recommendations were uploaded to the SPINE20 website 10 days before the meeting and opened to the public for comments. The recommendations were discussed at the meeting allowing the participants to object and provide comments. Results In total, 27 societies endorsed the following recommendations. SPINE20 calls upon the G20 countries: (1) to expand telehealth for the access to spine care, especially in light of the current situation with COVID-19. (2) To adopt value-based interprofessional spine care as an approach to improve patient outcomes and reduce disability. (3) To facilitate access and invest in the development of a competent rehabilitation workforce to reduce the burden of disability related to spine disorders. (4) To adopt a strategy to promote daily physical activity and exercises among the elderly population to maintain an active and independent life with a healthy spine, particularly after COVID-19 pandemic. (5) To engage in capacity building with emerging countries and underserved communities for the benefit of spine patients. (6) To promote strategies to transfer evidence-based advances into patient benefit through effective implementation processes. Conclusions SPINE20’s initiatives will make governments and decision makers aware of efforts to reduce needless suffering from disabling spine pain through education that can be instituted across the globe.

Study Design Narrative review Objectives Multiple classifications have been proposed for sacral fractures since the last century. While initial classifications focussed on vertical and transverse fractures, the recent fracture classifications encompass all injury patterns. In 1990, Isler classified unilateral vertical sacral fractures based on its potential influence on lumbo-sacral joint (LSJ) stability. Methods We re-visited the original description of Isler’s classification of sacral fractures and subsequent studies that have cited it. We will further describe basic LSJ anatomy, evolution of sacral classification systems and the use of Isler’s classification system as it relates to LSJ instability and chronic low back pain. Results Isler described a subset of unilateral vertical sacral fractures where the fracture line exited medial or through the L5-S1 facet joint, based on radiographic review of 193 sacral fractures (incidence -3.5%). He stated that such a fracture should be recognised as it can impede hemi-pelvis reduction and can result in late LSJ instability. The article has been cited in 106 studies and only a few studies have described the incidence of this variant. Nevertheless, the injury is considered as an indication for surgical fixation. Conclusion A review of various classifications indicates that sacral fractures have three important bio-mechanical implications, namely, pelvic ring continuity (vertical fractures), spino-pelvic alignment (high transverse fractures) and lumbo-sacral joint integrity (Isler’s fractures). Though there is a universal recognition of Isler’s fractures and its impact on LSJ integrity, there is a lack of clinical and bio-mechanical evidence regarding the concept of instability caused by a unilateral Isler fracture.

Verletzungen der subaxialen HWS nehmen zu und weisen ein im Vergleich zu Brust- und Lendenwirbelsaule erhohtes neurologisches Risiko auf. Dargestellt werden die aktuellen Behandlungsempfehlungen gemas den Therapieempfehlungen der Sektion Wirbelsaule (DGOU) und der S1-Leitlinie der DGU. Der vorliegende 2. Teil des Beitrags beschreibt die korrekte Indikationsstellung und Therapieplanung fur Halswirbelverletzungen. Ausgehend von der AOSpine-Klassifikation fur subaxiale HWS-Verletzungen konnen Entscheidungen uber eine konservative oder operative Therapie sowie einzelne Details der Therapie getroffen werden. Die grundlegenden Therapieprinzipien lauten Entlastung neurologischer Strukturen, Wiederherstellung von Stabilitat und Rekonstruktion/Erhalt des physiologischen Alignments.

Purpose To validate the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma). Methods Patients were recruited from two level-1 trauma centers from the Netherlands. Next to the AOSpine PROST, patients also filled out SF-36 for concurrent validity. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the characteristics. Content validity was assessed by evaluating the number of inapplicable or missing questions. Also floor and ceiling effects were analyzed. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s α and item-total correlation coefficients (itcc). Spearman correlation tests were performed within AOSpine PROST items and in correlation with SF-36. Test–retest reliability was analyzed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). Responsiveness was assessed by calculating effect sizes (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Factor analysis was performed to explore any dimensions within AOSpine PROST. Results Out of 179 enrolled patients, 163 (91.1%) were included. Good results were obtained for content validity. No floor or ceiling effects were seen. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach’s α = 0.96, itcc 0.50–0.86), with also good Spearman correlations (0.25–0.79). Compared to SF-36, the strongest correlation was seen for physical functioning (0.79; p p 1), explaining 65.4% of variance. Conclusions Very satisfactory results were obtained for reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST. Treating surgeons are encouraged to use this novel and validated tool in clinical setting and research to contribute to evidence-based and patient-centered care.

Wahrend minimal-invasive Verfahren fur die Versorgung von Brust- und Lendenwirbelverletzungen inzwischen Standard sind, sind solche Techniken an der Halswirbelsaule (HWS) noch nicht etabliert. Dies hat neben anatomischen und technischen Grunden auch die Ursache darin, dass das altbewahrte ventrale Vorgehen bereits die Kriterien der Minimal-Invasivitat weitgehend erfullt und auf die meisten Verletzungen anwendbar ist. Die vorhandene Literatur besteht im Wesentlichen aus Fallberichten und kleinen Kohortenstudien, deren Ergebnisse vorgestellt werden. Von nahezu samtlichen offenen Verfahren, v. a. an der oberen HWS, aber auch an der subaxialen HWS, ist auch eine minimal-invasive Variante beschrieben. Die Weiterentwicklung dieser vielversprechenden Techniken im Rahmen groser Studien steht noch aus.

Verletzungen der subaxialen Halswirbelsaule (HWS) nehmen zu und weisen ein im Vergleich zu Brust- und Lendenwirbelsaule hohes neurologisches Risiko auf. Dargestellt werden die aktuellen Behandlungsempfehlungen gemas den Empfehlungen der Sektion Wirbelsaule (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Orthopadie und Unfallchirurgie, DGOU) sowie der S1-Leitlinie der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Unfallchirurgie (DGU). Sowohl hoch- als auch niedrigenergetische Unfalle konnen eine HWS-Verletzung zur Folge haben. Besteht der klinische Verdacht auf das Vorliegen einer HWS-Verletzung, ist eine schnittbildgebende Untersuchung (CT/MRT) Methode der Wahl. Die Klassifikation der Verletzung erfolgt anhand der AOSpine-Klassifikation fur subaxiale Verletzungen. Davon ausgehend kann eine Entscheidung uber eine konservative oder eine operative Therapie sowie einzelne Details der Versorgung getroffen werden.

Fusion und Stabilisation lumbaler Bewegungssegmente in einer minimal-invasiven Technik. Degenerative Bandscheibenerkrankungen, Segmentdegenerationen, degenerative Spondylolisthesen, isthmische Spondylolisthesen, Pseudarthrosen, andere spinale Instabilitaten, Bandscheibenvorfall, Revisionsoperationen bei Postnukleotomiesyndrom, neuroforaminale Stenosen, Facettenarthrose. Hohergradige Spondylolisthesen (Meyerding Grad III und IV, Spondyloptosen), Notwendigkeit bilateraler Wurzeldekompression, Wirbelkorperfrakturen, Tumoren, hohergradige spinale Instabilitaten, primare spinale Deformitaten, Multi-level-Pathologien. Ipsilateraler minimal-invasiver Zugang zur Lendenwirbelsaule (LWS) mithilfe eines selbsthaltenden tubularen Retraktorsystems, partielle oder vollstandige Facettektomie, Implantation von Pedikelschrauben und des TLIF(„transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion“)-Cages unter Schonung der Nervenwurzeln, Fusion, kontralaterale Pedikelschraubeninsertion in minimal-invasiver oder perkutaner Technik. Postoperative Mobilisation nach physiotherapeutischer Anleitung, Rontgenkontrolle nach Mobilisation (LWS im Stehen, 2 Ebenen), Follow-up-Untersuchung (klinisch und radiologisch) nach 6 bis 12 Wochen sowie 1 Jahr postoperativ. Fusionsrate >90 %, vergleichbar mit der offenen TLIF. Komplikationsraten niedriger als bei offener TLIF. Kurzere Bestrahlungszeiten und -dosen, niedrigerer intraoperativer Blutverlust. Geringes chirurgisches Trauma fuhrt zu kurzerer Hospitalisationszeit und Arbeitsunfahigkeit. Signifikante Reduktion des ODI (Oswestry Disability Index) und VAS(visuelle Analogskala)-Scores.

Stand-alone zero-profile devices have already proven safety, and a reduced dysphagia rate was assumed. So far, no level-one evidence is available to prove the proposed advantages of zero-profile implants in multilevel procedures. The aim of this RCT was to compare the clinical and radiological outcome of a zero-profile spacer versus cage + plate in two-level ACDF. Consecutive patients with contiguous two-level cDD were randomly assigned either to the interventional group (zero-profile device) or to the control group (cage + plate). Primary endpoint of the study was the prevalence of dysphagia at 24 months. Disability, progress of adjacent segment degeneration, fusion status and loss of correction were analyzed as secondary outcome measure. Primary outcome parameter was statistically analyzed by Chi-square test. Forty-one patients met inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to the interventional and the control group. Dysphagia was frequent in either group at 3 months FU favoring interventional group (p = 0.078). At final FU, less patients of the interventional group complained about dysphagia, but the difference was not significant. No relevant differences at final FU were recorded for NPDI, loss of correction and adjacent-level degeneration. Fusion rate was slightly lower in the interventional group. Two-level ACDF either by a stand-alone zero-profile spacer or cage + plate is safe. Using a zero-profile cage dysphagia was infrequent at 24 months, but the value did not reach statistical significance in comparison with the cage + plate. Hence, this randomized trial was not able to prove the proposed clinical superiority for dysphagia rates for zero-profile anchored spacer in two-level cDD.

Generell stellen Wirbelsaulenverletzungen bei Kindern im Alter unter 16 Jahren eine seltene Verletzungsentitat dar. Fur Deutschland liegen keine belastbaren Daten bezuglich der Epidemiologie von Verletzungen der Wirbelsaule im Kindesalter vor. Gerade bei padiatrischen Patienten, bei denen sowohl die Anamnese, die klinische Untersuchung, aber auch die Durchfuhrung der bildgebenden Diagnostik haufig erschwert sind, mussen samtliche Hinweise auf eine Verletzung der Wirbelsaule mitberucksichtigt werden. Das Ziel der vorliegenden Studie war die Bereitstellung epidemiologischer Daten von padiatrischen Patienten mit Wirbelsaulenverletzungen in Deutschland, um diese zukunftig in die Entscheidungsfindung bei der Diagnostik und Therapie dieser Patienten einfliesen lassen zu konnen. Im Rahmen einer nationalen Multizenterstudie wurden retrospektiv Patientendaten innerhalb eines Zeitraums von 7 Jahren aus 6 Wirbelsaulenzentren erhoben. Neben den demografischen Daten wurden der Unfallmechanismus, die betroffene Wirbelsaulenregion und auch die Begleitverletzungen erhoben. Zudem erfolgte die Erfassung der bildgebenden Diagnostik sowie der jeweiligen Therapie. Es konnten 367 Kinder (weiblich: mannlich = 1:1,2) mit insgesamt 610 Verletzungen an der Wirbelsaule in die Studie eingeschlossen werden. Das mittlere Alter betrug 12 (±3,5) Jahre. Die haufigsten Unfallmechanismen in allen Altersgruppen waren ein Sturz aus unter 3 m Hohe sowie Verkehrsunfalle. Die bildgebende Diagnostik musste nur in Ausnahmefallen in Narkose durchgefuhrt werden. Wahrend jungere Kinder (0 bis 9 Jahre) eher Verletzungen im Bereich der Halswirbelsaule erlitten, zeigten sich Verletzungen der thorakolumbalen Wirbelsaule eher bei Kindern >10 Jahren. Die Kinder wiesen haufige Begleitverletzungen an Kopf und Extremitaten auf. Im Bereich der Wirbelsaule befanden sich weitere Verletzungen meist benachbart und nur selten in anderen Regionen. Rund 75 % der Kinder wurden konservativ behandelt. Die Ergebnisse unterscheiden sich von den Erkenntnissen aus der Erwachsenenmedizin und beschreiben spezielle Gegebenheiten fur padiatrische Patienten mit Wirbelsaulenverletzungen. Trotz gewisser Limitationen konnen sie so bei der Entscheidungsfindung uber die durchzufuhrende Diagnostik und Therapie dieser Patienten helfen.

Purpose To report on the development of AOSpine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) and results of an initial reliability study. Methods The AOSpine CROST was developed using an iterative approach of multiple cycles of development, review, and revision including an expert clinician panel. Subsequently, a reliability study was performed among an expert panel who were provided with 20 spine trauma cases, administered twice with 4-week interval. The results of the developmental process were analyzed using descriptive statistics, the reliability per parameter using Kappa statistics, inter-rater rater agreement using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and internal consistency using Cronbach’s α. Results The AOSpine CROST was developed and consisted of 10 parameters, 2 of which are only applicable for surgically treated patents (‘Wound healing’ and ‘Implants’). A dichotomous scoring system (‘yes’ or ‘no’ response) was incorporated to express expected problems for the short term and long term. In the reliability study, 16 (84.2%) participated in the first round and 14 (73.7%) in the second. Intra-rater reliability was fair to good for both time points (κ = 0.40–0.80 and κ = 0.31–0.67). Results of inter-rater reliability were lower (κ = 0.18–0.60 and κ = 0.16–0.46). Inter-rater agreement for total scores showed moderate results (ICC = 0.52–0.60), and the internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.76–0.82). Conclusions The AOSpine CROST, an outcome tool for the surgeons, was developed using an iterative process. An initial reliability analysis showed fair to moderate results and acceptable internal consistency. Further clinical validation studies will be performed to further validate the tool.

Study Design: Systematic literature review with meta-analysis. Objective: Osteoporosis is common in elderly patients, who frequently suffer from spinal fractures or degenerative diseases and often require surgical treatment with spinal instrumentation. Diminished bone quality impairs primary screw purchase, which may lead to loosening and its sequelae, in the worst case, revision surgery. Information about the incidence of spinal instrumentation-related complications in osteoporotic patients is currently limited to individual reports. We conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of quantifying the incidence of screw loosening in osteoporotic spines. Methods: Publications on spinal instrumentation of osteoporotic patients reporting screw-related complications were identified in 3 databases. Data on screw loosening and other local complications was collected. Pooled risks of experiencing such complications were estimated with random effects models. Risk of bias in the individual studies was assessed with an adapted McHarm Scale. Results: From 1831 initial matches, 32 were eligible and 19 reported screw loosening rates. Studies were heterogeneous concerning procedures performed and risk of bias. Screw loosening incidences were variable with a pooled risk of 22.5% (95% CI 10.8%-36.6%, 95% prediction interval [PI] 0%-81.2%) in reports on nonaugmented screws and 2.2% (95% CI 0.0%-7.2%, 95% PI 0%-25.1%) in reports on augmented screws. Conclusions: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that screw loosening incidences may be considerably higher in osteoporotic spines than with normal bone mineral density. Screw augmentation may reduce loosening rates; however, this requires confirmation through clinical studies. Standardized reporting of prespecified complications should be enforced by publishers.

The basis for assessing thoracolumbar vertebral body fractures are two established classification systems. Important, especially in terms of further treatment, is the distinction between osteoporotic and healthy bones. The AO Spine classification offers a comprehensive tool for healthy bones to reliably specify the morphological criterias (alignment, integrity of the intervertebral disc, fragment separation, stenosis of the spinal canal). In addition to the fracture morphology, the OF classification for osteoporotic fractures includes patient-specific characteristics to initiate adequate therapy. In general an adequate pain therapy is required for early rehabilitation. While in the bone healthy population, physiotherapy reduces the risk of muscle deconditioning, in the osteoporotic population it additionally serves to prevent subsequent fractures. Unlike osteoporotic patients, bone healthy patients with vertebral fractures should not undergo a corset/orthosis treatment.

Study Design: Abstract consensus paper with systematic literature review. Objective: The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for treatment of thoracolumbar spine fractures based on systematic review of current literature and consensus of several spine surgery experts. Methods: The project was initiated in September 2008 and published in Germany in 2011. It was redone in 2017 based on systematic literature review, including new AOSpine classification. Members of the expert group were recruited from all over Germany working in hospitals of all levels of care. In total, the consensus process included 9 meetings and 20 hours of video conferences. Results: As regards existing studies with highest level of evidence, a clear recommendation regarding treatment (operative vs conservative) or regarding type of surgery (posterior vs anterior vs combined anterior-posterior) cannot be given. Treatment has to be indicated individually based on clinical presentation, general condition of the patient, and radiological parameters. The following specific parameters have to be regarded and are proposed as morphological modifiers in addition to AOSpine classification: sagittal and coronal alignment of spine, degree of vertebral body destruction, stenosis of spinal canal, and intervertebral disc lesion. Meanwhile, the recommendations are used as standard algorithm in many German spine clinics and trauma centers. Conclusion: Clinical presentation and general condition of the patient are basic requirements for decision making. Additionally, treatment recommendations offer the physician a standardized, reproducible, and in Germany commonly accepted algorithm based on AOSpine classification and 4 morphological modifiers.

Study Design: Narrative review and expert recommendation. Objectives: To establish treatment recommendations for atlas fractures based on the knowledge of the experts of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma. Methods: Neither high-level evidence studies comparing conservative and operative management nor studies matching different operative treatment strategies exist. This recommendation summarizes the knowledge of the experts of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma with regard to the treatment of atlas fractures. Results: Most atlas fractures are the result of compression forces. A valuable morphological classification system has been described by Gehweiler. For an adequate diagnosis, a computed tomography is mandatory. To distinguish between stable and unstable type 3 injuries, it is necessary to evaluate the integrity of the transverse atlantal ligament (TAL) with magnetic resonance imaging and to classify the TAL lesions. The majority of atlas fractures are stable and will be successfully managed conservatively. Unstable atlas fractures (type 3b and sagittal split type 4 fractures) should be treated by surgical stabilization. Unstable atlas fractures (type 3b) with a midsubstance ligamentous disruption or severely dislocated ligamentous bony avulsions of the TAL can successfully be treated by a C1/2 fusion. Unstable atlas fractures (type 3b) with a moderately dislocated ligamentous bony avulsion of the TAL and sagittal split type 4 fractures may be treated by atlas osteosynthesis only. Conclusions: Whereas the majority of atlas fractures can be managed conservatively, in specific fracture patterns surgical treatment strategies have become the standard of care.

Study Design: Expert consensus. Objectives: To establish treatment recommendations for subaxial cervical spine injuries based on current literature and the knowledge of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma. Methods: This recommendation summarizes the knowledge of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma. Results: Therapeutic goals are a stable, painless cervical spine and protection against secondary neurologic damage while retaining maximum possible motion and spinal profile. The AOSpine classification for subaxial cervical injuries is recommended. The Canadian C-Spine Rule is recommended to decide on the need for imaging. Computed tomography is the favoured modality. Conventional x-ray is preserved for cases lacking a “dangerous mechanism of injury.” Magnetic resonance imaging is recommended in case of unexplained neurologic deficit, prior to closed reduction and to exclude disco-ligamentous injuries. Computed tomography angiography is recommended in high-grade facet joint injuries or in the presence of vertebra-basilar symptoms. A0-, A1- and A2-injuries are treated conservatively, but have to be monitored for progressive kyphosis. A3 injuries are operated in the majority of cases. A4- and B- and C-type injuries are treated surgically. Most injuries can be treated with anterior plate stabilization and interbody support; A4 fractures need vertebral body replacement. In certain cases, additive or pure posterior instrumentation is needed. Usually, lateral mass screws suffice. A navigation system is advised for pedicle screws from C3 to C6. Conclusions: These recommendations provide a framework for the treatment of subaxial cervical spine Injuries. They give advice about diagnostic measures and the therapeutic strategy.

ZusammenfassungVentrale Spondylodesetechniken werden regelhaft zur Versorgung von Verletzungen der Halswirbelsäule angewandt. Dieser Beitrag soll Ihnen Indikationen, die technische Umsetzung, Nachbehandlung wie auch die potenziellen Komplikationen ventraler Spondylodesetechniken an der Halswirbelsäule näher bringen.

ZusammenfassungDieser Übersichtsartikel soll in die Grundlagen der sagittalen Balance der Wirbelsäule einführen, die diagnostischen Maßnahmen und insbesondere die Messmethoden des Wirbelsäulenprofils und der Beckenparameter darstellen sowie als typisches Krankheitsbild einer sagittalen Deformität die posttraumatische Kyphose vorstellen. In einem zweiten Teil in einem der folgenden Hefte werden die spezifischen konservativen und operativen Behandlungsmethoden von sagittalen Profilstörungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der posttraumatischen kyphotischen Wirbelsäulendeformitäten beschrieben.

ZusammenfassungIm Rahmen eines Konsensusprozesses der Arbeitsgruppe „subaxiale HWS-Verletzungen“ der Sektion Wirbelsäule der DGOU erfolgte in 4 Sitzungen im Jahre 2016 die Erstellung der vorliegenden Therapieempfehlungen unter Berücksichtigung der vorhandenen Literatur. Therapieziele sind eine dauerhaft stabile, schmerzfreie Halswirbelsäule und der Schutz vor sekundären neurologischen Schäden unter größtmöglicher Berücksichtigung der Beweglichkeit und des Wirbelsäulenprofils. Aufgrund der Praktikabilität und der guten Evaluation hinsichtlich Reliabilität sollte die AOSpine-Klassifikation für subaxiale HWS-Verletzungen für die Klassifikation zur Anwendung kommen. Es wird die Canadian C-Spine Rule als klinischer Algorithmus zur Entscheidung hinsichtlich der Notwendigkeit einer bildgebenden Diagnostik empfohlen. Bei gemäß dieser Regel anamnestisch oder klinisch hohem Verdacht auf eine strukturelle, instabile Verletzung ist die Spiral-CT der HWS Verfahren der Wahl. Die konventionelle Röntgendiagnostik in 2 Ebenen bleibt Fällen vorbehalten, in denen kein „gefährlicher Unfallmechanismus“ vorliegt. Die Indikation für die MRT der HWS wird vor allem bei nicht erklärbaren neurologischen Symptomen, bei geplanter geschlossener Reposition und dorsaler Stabilisierung und zum Ausschluss vermuteter diskoligamentärer Verletzungen empfohlen, wobei hier je nach Befundkonstellation eine abgestufte Dringlichkeit gilt. Die CT-Angiografie wird bei höhergradigen Facettengelenkverletzungen oder bei Vorliegen vertebrobasilärer Symptome empfohlen. Die konventionelle Funktionsdiagnostik wird ausschließlich in Form der ärztlich geführten dynamischen Bildwandlerdurchleuchtung bei persistierendem Verdacht auf eine instabile Verletzung empfohlen. Die therapeutische Strategie richtet sich primär nach der Verletzungsmorphologie, die in der AOSpine-Klassifikation beschrieben wird. A0-Frakturen sollten konservativ behandelt werden. A1- und A2-Frakturen sollten meistens konservativ behandelt werden, wobei die segmentale Kyphose in Einzelfällen eine OP-Indikation bedingen kann. A3-Frakturen stellen in den meisten Fällen eine OP-Indikation dar, in Einzelfällen ist eine konservative Behandlung möglich. A4-Frakturen sowie die B- und C-Verletzungen bedürfen einer operativen Therapie. Die ventrale Plattenspondylodese mit interkorporeller Abstützung (bei Berstungskomponente durch Korporektomie und Wirbelkörperersatz) wird für die meisten Verletzungen empfohlen, eine rein dorsale oder zusätzlich dorsale Stabilisierung kann bei besonderer Befundkonstellation möglich oder sogar notwendig sein. In diesen Fällen ist die Instrumentierung mit Massa-lateralis-Schrauben zumeist ausreichend; bei Anwendung von Pedikelschrauben in Höhe C III – C VI wird ein Navigationssystem empfohlen. Bei Vorliegen einer ankylosierenden Grunderkrankung (M3-Modifikator) wird hingegen die dorsale, langstreckige Stabilisierung favorisiert.