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.

Survey among spine experts.To investigate the different views and opinions of clinically relevant spinal post-traumatic deformity (SPTD).There is no clear definition of clinically relevant SPTD. This leads to a wide variation in characteristics used for diagnosis and treatment indications of SPTD. To understand the current concepts of SPTD a survey was conducted among spine trauma surgeons.Members of the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma participated in an online survey. The survey was divided in 4 domains: Demographics, criteria to define SPTD, risk factors, and management. The data were collected anonymously and analyzed using descriptive statistics, absolute, and relative frequencies. Consensus on dichotomous outcomes was set to 80% of agreement.Fifteen members with extensive experience in treatment of spinal trauma participated, representing the 5 AO Spine Regions. Back pain was the only criterion for definition of SPTD with complete agreement. Consensus (≥80%) was reached for kyphotic angulation outside normative ranges and impaired function. Eighty-seven percent and 100% agreed that a full-spine conventional radiograph was necessary in diagnosing and treating SPTD, respectively. The "missed B-type injury" was rated at most important by all but 1 participant. There was no agreement on other risk factors leading to clinically relevant SPTD. Concerning the management, all participants agreed that an asymptomatic patient should not undergo surgical treatment and that neurological deficit is an absolute surgical indication. For most of the participants the preferred surgical treatment of acute injury in all spine regions but the subaxial region is posterior fixation.Some consensus exists among leading experts in the field of spine trauma care concerning the definition, diagnosis, risk factors, and management of SPTD. This study acts as the foundation for a Delphi study among the global spine community.

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.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., Objectives: To (1) demonstrate that the AO Spine Sacral Classification System can be reliably applied by general orthopaedic surgeons and subspecialists universally around the world and (2) delineate those injury subtypes that are most difficult to classify reliably to refine the classification before evaluating clinical outcomes. Design: Agreement study. Setting: All-level trauma centers, worldwide. Participants: One hundred seventy-two members of the AO Trauma and AO Spine community. Intervention: The AO Sacral Classification System was applied by each surgeon to 26 cases in 2 independent assessments performed 3 weeks apart. Main Outcome Measurements: Interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. Results: A total of 8097 case assessments were performed. The kappa coefficient for interobserver agreement for all cases was 0.72/0.75 (assessment 1/assessment 2), representing substantial reliability. When comparing classification grading (A/B/C) regardless of subtype, the kappa coefficient was 0.84/0.85, corresponding to excellent reliability. The kappa coefficients for interobserver reliability were 0.95/0.93 for type A fractures, 0.78/0.79 for type B fractures, and 0.80/0.83 for type C fractures. The overall kappa statistic for intraobserver reliability was 0.82 (range 0.18–1.00), representing excellent reproducibility. When only evaluating morphology type (A/B/C), the average kappa value was 0.87 (range 0.18–1.00), representing excellent reproducibility. Conclusion: The AO Spine Sacral Classification System is universally reliable among general orthopaedic surgeons and subspecialists worldwide, with substantial interobserver and excellent intraobserver reliability.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (< 5 years, 5–10 years, 10–20 years, and > 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (< 5 years: 0.74 vs 5–10 years: 0.69 vs 10–20 years: 0.69 vs > 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (< 5 years: 0.67 vs 5–10 years: 0.62 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (< 5 years: 0.62 vs 5–10 years: 0.61 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Prior upper cervical spine injury classification systems have focused on injuries to the craniocervical junction (CCJ), atlas, and dens independently. However, no previous system has classified upper cervical spine injuries using a comprehensive system incorporating all injuries from the occiput to the C2-3 joint. PURPOSE To (1) determine the accuracy of experts at correctly classifying upper cervical spine injuries based on the recently proposed AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System (2) to determine their interobserver reliability and (3) identify the intraobserver reproducibility of the experts. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING International Multi-Center Survey PATIENT SAMPLE: A survey of international spine surgeons on 29 unique upper cervical spine injuries OUTCOME MEASURES: Classification accuracy, interobserver reliability, intraobserver reproducibility METHODS: Thirteen international AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma members participated in two live webinar-based classifications of 29 upper cervical spine injuries presented in random order, four weeks apart. Percent agreement with the gold-standard and kappa coefficients (ƙ) were calculated to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS Raters demonstrated 80.8% and 82.7% accuracy with identification of the injury classification (combined location and type) on the first and second assessment, respectively. Injury classification intraobserver reproducibility was excellent (mean, [range] ƙ = 0.82 [0.58-1.00]). Excellent interobserver reliability was found for injury location (ƙ = 0.922 and ƙ= 0.912) on both assessments, while injury type was substantial (ƙ=0.689 and 0.699) on both assessments. This correlated to a substantial overall interobserver reliability (ƙ = 0.729 and 0.732). CONCLUSION Early phase validation demonstrated classification of upper cervical spine injuries using the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System to be accurate, reliable, and reproducible. Greater than 80% accuracy was detected for injury classification. The intraobserver reproducibility was excellent, while the interobserver reliability was substantial.

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.

PURPOSE To assess the accuracy and reliability of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on a surgeons' work setting and trauma center affiliation. METHODS A total of 275 AO Spine members participated in a validation of 25 upper cervical spine injuries, which were evaluated by computed tomography (CT) scans. Each participant was grouped based on their work setting (academic, hospital-employed, or private practice) and their trauma center affiliation (Level I, Level II or III, and Level IV or no trauma center). The classification accuracy was calculated as percent of correct classifications, while interobserver reliability, and intraobserver reproducibility were evaluated based on Fleiss' Kappa coefficient. RESULTS The overall classification accuracy for surgeons affiliated with a level I trauma center was significantly greater than participants affiliated with a level II/III center or a level IV/no trauma center on assessment one (p1

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 f��r 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 (20���yrs). 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���=���0.87 for morphology and k���=���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���=���0.842/0.850, Assessment 1/Assessment 2) and substantial interobserver reliability in overall subtype (k���=���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���=���0.024, Assessment 2: P���=���0.006) and subtype (P2���

The upper cervical spine accounts for the largest proportion of cervical range of motion afforded by a complex system of bony morphology and ligamentous stability. Its unique anatomy, however, also makes it particularly vulnerable during both low and high energy trauma. Trauma to this area, referred to as upper cervical spine trauma, can disrupt the stability of the upper cervical spine and result in a wide spectrum of injury. Numerous upper cervical injury classification systems have been proposed, each of which have distinct limitations and drawbacks that have prevented their universal adoption. In this article, we provide an overview of previous classifications, with an emphasis on the development of the new AO Spine Upper Cervical Classification System (AO Spine UCCS).

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: The OF classification is a new classification for osteoporotic vertebral fractures. The aim of this study was to clarify the relationship between preoperative OF subgroups and the postoperative outcome after kyphoplasty in patients with such fractures. Methods: Patients who underwent kyphoplasty of a single osteoporotic vertebral fracture were included and divided into groups according to the OF subgroups. Pre- and postoperative plain radiographs were analyzed in regard to the restoration of vertebral body height and local kyphotic angle (LKA). Additionally, clinical data including pre- and postoperative Visual Analogue Scale pain scores was documented. The clinical and radiological results were compared pre- and postoperatively within groups and between groups. Results: A total of 156 patients from OF subgroups 2 to 4 were included (OF 2: n = 58; OF 3: n = 36; OF 4: n = 62). Patients from all groups experienced significant pain relief postoperatively ( P < .001). Patients with OF 2 fractures showed a repositioning of the vertebral body height in the anterior and middle portions (both P < .001), but no significant improvement in LKA. For OF 3 and 4 fractures, there was a significant restoration of vertebral body height ( P < .001 for both) and a significant improvement of LKA ( P < .001 for both). The highest average restoration was noted in the OF 4 group. Conclusions: A higher OF subgroup is related to a higher radiological benefit from kyphoplasty. This confirms that the OF classification is an appropriate tool for the preoperative assessment of osteoporotic fractures.

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.

Wirbelsaulenverletzungen im Kindesalter sind insgesamt sehr selten. Aktuelle einschlagige Studien mit grosen Fallzahlen, aus welchen sich evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zu Diagnostik und Therapie von Wirbelsaulenverletzungen bei padiatrischen Patienten ableiten lassen, existieren nicht. Formulierung von Empfehlungen zu Diagnostik und Therapie von Verletzungen der Brust- und Lendenwirbelsaule im Kindesalter. Zunachst erfolgte eine Recherche von Primar-, aber auch Sekundarliteratur zum Themenkomplex Diagnostik und Therapie von Verletzungen der Wirbelsaule bei Kindern. Eine entsprechende interne Literaturdatenbank wurde angelegt und gepflegt. Im Zeitraum von April 2017 bis Dezember 2019 fanden sich die Mitglieder der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wirbelsaulentrauma im Kindesalter der Sektion Wirbelsaule der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Orthopadie und Unfallchirurgie zu einem Konsensusprozess zusammen. In 9 Arbeitstreffen wurden systematisch Empfehlungen zu Diagnostik und Therapie von Verletzungen der Wirbelsaule bei Kindern formuliert. Es konnten Empfehlungen zu Diagnostik und Therapie von Verletzungen der Brust- und Lendenwirbelsaule fur 3 Altersstufen (Altersstufe I: 0 bis 6 Jahre; Altersstufe II: 7 bis 9 Jahre; Altersstufe III: 10 bi s16 Jahre) formuliert werden. Die Prinzipien der Diagnostik und Therapie aus der Erwachsenenmedizin konnen nicht problemlos ubertragen werden. Wirbelsaulenverletzungen im Kindesalter sind selten und sollten der Behandlung in geeigneten Zentren zugefuhrt werden. Die MRT-Diagnostik sollte beim kardiopulmonal stabilen Kind mit Verdacht auf ein Monotrauma der Wirbelsaule als initiale Bildgebung indiziert werden. Die grundlegenden Therapieziele bei Verletzungen der Brust- und Lendenwirbelsaule im Kindesalter sind die Wiederherstellung der Stabilitat, der Schutz der neurogenen Strukturen und das Wiederherstellen der anatomisch korrekten Verhaltnisse. Bei der Indikationsstellung zur konservativen vs. operativen Therapie mussen das Korrektur- und Regenerationspotenzial der einzelnen Wirbelsaulenabschnitte in Abhangigkeit vom Patientenalter berucksichtigt werden. Die operative Stabilisierung soll v. a. uber minimalinvasive Techniken, im Sinne einer Instrumentierung ohne Spondylodese und fruhzeitiger Metallentfernung, erfolgen.