Search

Objective: To identify delays for surgery to stabilize subaxial cervical fractures and the main reasons for them across Latin America., Methods: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study of patients surgically treated for subaxial cervical fractures from 13 spine centers across Latin America from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2023. Causes of delay to surgery beyond 24 hours were documented., Results: We included 529 patients from 13 institutions in Latin American countries; 408 (77.1%) males and 121 (22.9%) females with a mean age of 43.4 (standard deviation = ±16.2). Predominantly caused by traffic accident (n = 256; 48.4%), followed by fall from height (n = 233; 44%). Mostly, suffered type C fractures (n = 348; 65.8%) and/or neurological injury (n = 384; 72.6%). The time from admission to surgery was >72 hours in 70% of the patients included (n = 375; 70.9%). More than 45% waited longer than a week (n = 257; 48.6%) for spine surgery. Only 12.5% (n = 66) of the patients received surgery in the first 24 hours from admission. The primary reasons for the surgical delay were the necessity for other surgical procedures (n = 161; 34.8%), the unavailability of surgical implants (n = 60; 13.0%), patient clinical instability (n = 55; 11.9%), and delays in referral (n = 38; 8.2%)., Conclusions: We documented significant and concerning delays in providing spinal decompression and stabilization surgery to patients with cervical spine fractures. Only 17% of patients have surgery in the recommended time <24 hours, more than half of the patients must wait for more than 72 hours, and nearly half of patients wait for longer than a week., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition. Early effective treatment is limited by late diagnosis. Conventional descriptions of DCM focus on motor and sensory limb disability, however, recent work suggests the true impact is much broader. This study aimed to characterise the symptomatic presentation of DCM from the perspective of people with DCM and determine whether any of the reported symptoms, or groups of symptoms, were associated with early diagnosis., Methods: An internet survey was developed, using an established list of patient-reported effects. Participants (N = 171) were recruited from an online community of people with DCM. Respondents selected their current symptoms and primary presenting symptom. The relationship of symptoms and their relationship to time to diagnosis were explored. This included symptoms not commonly measured today, termed 'non-conventional' symptoms., Results: All listed symptoms were experienced by >10% of respondents, with poor balance being the most commonly reported (84.2%). Non-conventional symptoms accounted for 39.7% of symptomatic burden. 55.4% of the symptoms were reported as an initial symptom, with neck pain the most common (13.5%). Non-conventional symptoms accounted for 11.1% of initial symptoms. 79.5% of the respondents were diagnosed late (>6 months). Heavy legs was the only initial symptom associated with early diagnosis., Conclusions: A comprehensive description of the self-reported effects of DCM has been established, including the prevalence of symptoms at disease presentation. The experience of DCM is broader than suggested by conventional descriptions and further exploration of non-conventional symptoms may support earlier diagnosis., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: CFM has declared that no competing interests exist. RY has declared that no competing interests exist. ZCM has declared that no competing interests exist. MGF currently serves as an academic editor at PLOS ONE. RRP has declared that no competing interests exist. JM has declared that no competing interests exist. KM has declared that no competing interests exist. MRNK has declared that no competing interests exist. BMD is supported by NIHR POLYFIX DCM and NIHR Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship grants. BMD is a founder of MoveMed (a digital therapeutics platform which develops assessments and treatments using software). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2023 Munro et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: The treatment of unilateral CFD in patients without neurologic deficits remains controversial, especially in the choice of the best surgical approach. Our objective is to determine the way spine surgeons from Latin America manage this condition., Methods: A survey regarding management and surgical strategies was conducted by the AO Spine Latin American Trauma Study Group considering the treatment of unilateral CFD., Results: All AO Spine Latin American Trauma Study Group members were sent a link to the survey, among whom 285 replied, with 197 respondents answering all the questions. Nonsurgical management was considered by 25% of the surgeons. The majority stated that magnetic resonance imaging is necessary (65%) to treat this type of patient. A posterior approach was preferred by 44%, an anterior approach by 29%, and a combined approach by 25%, while 2.2% did not answer. Traction was not used by the majority of respondents (62%). In the setting of an anterior disk herniation, the majority of surgeons preferred to employ an anterior (45%) or combined (44%) approach versus an isolated posterior approach (only 0.5%). Comparing early versus late cervical trauma, fewer surgeons adopted an isolated anterior approach with the latter (29% vs. 15%)., Conclusions: Wide variations exist in the management of unilateral CFD by Latin American surgeons, with early injuries generally treated using either an anterior or posterior approach and treated early but after an MRI, while a combined approach is used more commonly with late injuries. Either an anterior or combined approach is used when disk herniation is present., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: An agreement study., Objective: The aim of this study was to perform an independent interobserver and intraobserver agreement assessment of the AOSpine subaxial cervical spine injury classification system., Summary of Background Data: The AOSpine subaxial cervical spine injury classification system was recently described. It showed substantial inter- and intraobserver agreement in the study describing it; however, an independent evaluation has not been performed., Methods: Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs, computed tomography scans, and magnetic resonance imaging of 65 patients with acute traumatic subaxial cervical spine injuries were selected and classified using the morphologic grading of the subaxial cervical spine injury classification system by 6 evaluators (3 spine surgeons and 3 orthopedic surgery residents). After a 6-week interval, the 65 cases were presented to the same evaluators in a random sequence for repeat evaluation. The kappa coefficient (κ) was used to determine the inter- and intraobserver agreement., Results: The interobserver agreement was substantial when considering the fracture main types (A, B, C, or F), with κ = 0.61 (0.57-0.64), but moderate when considering the subtypes: κ = 0.57 (0.54-0.60). The intraobserver agreement was substantial considering the fracture types, with κ = 0.68 (0.62-0.74) and considering subtypes, κ = 0.62 (0.57-0.66). No significant differences were observed between spine surgeons and orthopedic residents in the overall inter- and intraobserver agreement, or in the inter- and intraobserver agreement of specific A, B, C, or F type of injuries., Conclusion: This classification allows adequate agreement among different observers and by the same observer on separate occasions. Future prospective studies should determine whether this classification allows surgeons to decide the best treatment for patients with subaxial cervical spine injuries., Level of Evidence: 3.

Purpose: We performed an agreement study using two subaxial cervical spine classification systems: the AOSpine and the Allen and Ferguson (A&F) classifications. We sought to determine which scheme allows better agreement by different evaluators and by the same evaluator on different occasions., Methods: Complete imaging studies of 65 patients with subaxial cervical spine injuries were classified by six evaluators (three spine sub-specialists and three senior orthopaedic surgery residents) using the AOSpine subaxial cervical spine classification system and the A&F scheme. The cases were displayed in a random sequence after a 6-week interval for repeat evaluation. The Kappa coefficient (κ) was used to determine inter- and intra-observer agreement., Results: Inter-observer: considering the main AO injury types, the agreement was substantial for the AOSpine classification [κ = 0.61 (0.57-0.64)]; using AO sub-types, the agreement was moderate [κ = 0.57 (0.54-0.60)]. For the A&F classification, the agreement [κ = 0.46 (0.42-0.49)] was significantly lower than using the AOSpine scheme. Intra-observer: the agreement was substantial considering injury types [κ = 0.68 (0.62-0.74)] and considering sub-types [κ = 0.62 (0.57-0.66)]. Using the A&F classification, the agreement was also substantial [κ = 0.66 (0.61-0.71)]. No significant differences were observed between spine surgeons and orthopaedic residents in the overall inter- and intra-observer agreement, or in the inter- and intra-observer agreement of specific type of injuries., Conclusion: The AOSpine classification (using the four main injury types or at the sub-types level) allows a significantly better agreement than the A&F classification. The A&F scheme does not allow reliable communication between medical professionals.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: Currently there is limited evidence and guidance on the management of mild degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and asymptomatic spinal cord compression (ASCC). Anecdotal evidence suggest variance in clinical practice. The objectives of this study were to assess current practice and to quantify the variability in clinical practice. METHODS: Spinal surgeons and some additional health professionals completed a web-based survey distributed by email to members of AO Spine and the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) North American Society. Questions captured experience with DCM, frequency of DCM patient encounters, and standard of practice in the assessment of DCM. Further questions assessed the definition and management of mild DCM, and the management of ASCC. RESULTS: A total of 699 respondents, mostly surgeons, completed the survey. Every world region was represented in the responses. Half (50.1%, n = 359) had greater than 10 years of professional experience with DCM. For mild DCM, standardised follow-up for non-operative patients was reported by 488 respondents (69.5%). Follow-up included a heterogeneous mix of investigations, most often at 6-month intervals (32.9%, n = 158). There was some inconsistency regarding which clinical features would cause a surgeon to counsel a patient towards surgery. Practice for ASCC aligned closely with mild DCM. Finally, there were some contradictory definitions of mild DCM provided in the form of free text. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals typically offer outpatient follow up for patients with mild DCM and/or asymptomatic ASCC. However, what this constitutes varies widely. Further research is needed to define best practice and support patient care.

Study Design: Cross-sectional survey. Objectives: Assessment of subaxial cervical facet injuries using the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System is based on CT scan findings. However, additional radiological evaluations are not directly considered. The aim of this study is to determine situations in which spine surgeons request additional radiological exams after a facet fracture. Methods: A survey was sent to AO Spine members from Latin America. The evaluation considered demographic variables, routine use of the Classification, as well as the timepoint at which surgeons requested a cervical MRI, a vascular study, and/ or dynamic radiographs before treatment of facet fractures. Results: There was 229 participants, mean age 42.9 ± 10.2 years; 93.4% were men. Orthopedic surgeons 57.6% with 10.7 ± 8.7 years of experience in spine surgery. A total of 86% used the Classification in daily practice. An additional study (MRI/vascular study/and dynamic radiographs) was requested in 53.3%/9.6%/43.7% in F1 facet injuries; 76.0%/20.1%/50.2% in F2; 89.1%/65.1%/28.4% in F3; and 94.8%/66.4%/16.6% in F4. An additional study was frequently required: F1 72.5%, F2 86.9%, F3 94.7%, and F4 96.1%. Conclusions: Spine surgeons generally requested additional radiological evaluations in facet injuries, and MRI was the most common. Dynamic radiographs had a higher prevalence for F1/F2 fractures; vascular studies were more common for F3/F4 especially among surgeons with fewer years of experience. Private hospitals had a lower spine trauma cases/year and requested more MRI and more dynamic radiographs in F1/F2. Neurosurgeons had more vascular studies and dynamic radiographs than orthopedic surgeons in all facet fractures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pole dancing is a sport that has become very popular. However, there is scarce literature on injuries associated with this sport. Here, we present a 23-year-old female who sustained a traumatic C4-C5 vertex cervical spine injury caused by a fall of 1 m while practicing pole dancing in an inverted position, requiring a 360 decompression/fusion. Case Description: A 23-year-old female sustained a 1 m fall in an inverted position while pole dancing resulting in a direct axial impact to the head. She developed the rapid onset of quadriparesis that was attributed to the emergent CT/MR-documented cervical flexodisruptive luxofracture (AOSpine C4-C5 fracture: C, F4 unilateral, N3, M2). Four hours post injury, she underwent a C4-C5 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Four days later, a posterior fusion was performed to add to the stabilization. Six years later, the patient remains neurologically intact. Conclusion: Pole dance is an emerging sport which carries a risk of cervical spine injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A classification system was recently developed by the international association AO Spine for assessing subaxial cervical spine fractures. Significant variability exists between users of the facet component, which consists of four morphological types (F1–F4). The primary aims of this study were to assess the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of this new system's facet injury morphological classifications. Methods: A survey consisting of 16 computed tomography (CT) scans of patients with cervical facet fractures was distributed to spine surgeon members of AO Spine Latin America. To provide a gold standard diagnosis for comparison, all 16 injuries had been classified previously by six co-authors and only were included after total consensus was achieved. Demographic and surgical practice characteristics of all respondents were analyzed, and diagnostic accuracy calculated. Inter- and intra-observer agreement rates were calculated across two survey rounds, conducted one month apart. Results: A total of 135 surgeons completed both surveys, among whom the mean age was 41.6 years (range 26–71), 130 (96.3%) were men, and 83 (61.5%) were orthopedic surgeons. The mean time in practice as a spine surgeon was 9.7 years (1–30). The overall diagnostic accuracy of all responses was 65.4%. Inter-observer and intra-observer agreement rates for F1/F2/F3/F4 were 55.4%/47.6%/64.0%/94.7% and 60.0%/49.1%/58.0%/93.0%, respectively. Conclusion: This study evaluates the AO Spine Classification System specifically for facet injuries involving the subaxial cervical spine in a large sample of spine surgeons. There was significant variability in diagnostic accuracy for F1 through F3-type fractures, whereas almost universal agreement was achieved for F4-type injuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Solitay bone plasmocytoma (SBP) account for just 5-10% of all plasma cell neoplasms. They are infrequent in the cervical spine, especially involving the C0-C2 segment. In this article we conducted a literature review and present the diagnosis, management and long term course of two patients with SBP of C2 causing cervical instability. Methods: We assessed the clinical records of two patients with SBP in C2 and cervical instability attributed to SP-B involving C2. Both patients presented with progressive, severe cervicalgia, and the "sensation" of skull instability. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed an extensive, infiltrative lesion involving C2 vertebral body and lateral masses, consistent with a plasmacytoma. Results: Both patients underwent emergency posterior surgical stabilization with craniocervical fixation; this was accompanied by a C2 transpedicular biopsy. Postoperatively, patients exhibited no focal neurological deficits and rapidly became pain free. They additional recieved 25 sessions of local conventional radiation therapy. Both patients are doing well as respective 2 and 7-year follow-up. Conclusion: Although rare, unstable SBP may present atypical cervical location that readily responds to surgical descompression/fusion and radiotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Systematic literature review. Objectives: In this study we assessed evidence for the use of osteobiologics in single vs multi-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with cervical spine degeneration. The primary objective was to compare fusion rates after single and multi-level surgery with different osteobiologics. Secondary objectives were to compare differences in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications. Methods: After a global team of reviewers was selected, a systematic review using different repositories was performed, confirming to PRISMA and GRADE guidelines. In total 1206 articles were identified and after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 11 articles were eligible for analysis. Extracted data included fusion rates, definition of fusion, patient reported outcome measures, types of osteobiologics used, complications, adverse events and revisions. Results: Fusion rates ranged from 87.7% to 100% for bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2) and 88.6% to 94.7% for demineralized bone matrix, while fusion rates reported for other osteobiologics were lower. All included studies showed PROMs improved significantly for each osteobiologic. However, no differences were reported when comparing osteobiologics, or when comparing single vs multi-level surgery specifically. Conclusion: The highest fusion rates after 2-level ACDF for cervical spine degeneration were reported when BMP-2 was used. However, PROMs did not differ between the different osteobiologics. Further blinded randomized trials should be performed to compare the use of BMP-2 in single vs multi-level ACDF specifically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cervical spine fractures are potentially catastrophic injuries in rugby players. Here, we reviewed seven patients who sustained rugby-related cervical spine fractures. Notably, three of seven fractures were missed on initial X-rays, but were ultimately documented on CT studies obtained an average of 10 days later. Methods: Seven patients sustained cervical spine fracture attributed to rugby (2009-2016) and were followed an average of 52 posttrauma months. Most injuries occurred at the C6-C7 level, and six of seven patients required surgery. Further, only two of seven patients exhibited resultant neurological deficits (e.g., one myelopathy and one radiculopathy). Results: Although the rugby injury was sufficiently documented on initial X-rays in four patients, three initial X-rays missed fractures, which were documented on the CT studies obtained an average of 10 days later. Conclusion: Rugby-related cervical fractures must be considered where players continue to complain of pain following trauma. Notably, routine X-rays may miss fractures in 3 of 7 cases (43%), thus warranting supplemental CT examinations to definitively rule out fractures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: The complex anatomy of the upper cervical spine resulted in numerous separate classification systems of upper cervical spine trauma. The AOSpine upper cervical classification system (UCCS) was recently described; however, an independent agreement assessment has not been performed.Purpose: To perform an independent evaluation of the AOSpine UCCS.Study Design: Agreement study.Patient Sample: Eighty four patients with upper cervical spine injuries.Outcome Measures: Inter-observer agreement; intra-observer agreement.Methods: Complete imaging studies of 84 patients with upper cervical spine injuries, including all morphological types of injuries defined by the AOSpine UCCS were selected and classified by six evaluators (from three different countries). The 84 cases were presented to the same raters randomly after a 4-week interval for repeat evaluation. The Kappa coefficient (κ) was used to determine inter- and intra-observer agreement.Results: The interobserver agreement was almost perfect when considering the fracture site (I, II or III), with κ=0.82 (0.78-0.83), but the agreement according to the site and type level was moderate, κ=0.57 (0.55-0.65). The intra-observer agreement was almost perfect considering the injury, with κ=0.83 (0.78-0.86), while according to site and type was substantial, κ=0.69 (0.67-0.71).Conclusions: We observed only a moderate inter-observer agreement using this classification. We believe our results can be explained because this classification attempted to organize many different injury types into a single scheme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]