Effect of a Contrast Agent on Bone Mineral Density Measurement in the Spine and Hip Using QCT-Conversion Factor Recommendation.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis causes an increased fracture risk. Clinically, osteoporosis is diagnosed late, usually after the first fracture occurs. This emphasizes the need for an early diagnosis of osteoporosis. However, computed tomography (CT) as routinely used for polytrauma scans cannot be used in the form of quantitative computed tomography (QCT) diagnosis because QCT can only be applied natively, i.e., without any contrast agent application. Here, we tested whether and how contrast agent application could be used for bone densitometry measurements. METHODS: Bone mineral density (BMD) was determined by QCT in the spine region of patients with and without the contrast agent Imeron 350. Corresponding scans were performed in the hip region to evaluate possible location-specific differences. RESULTS: Measurements with and without contrast agent administration between spine and hip bones indicate that the corresponding BMD values were reproducibly different between spine and hips, indicating that Imeron 350 application has a location-specific effect. We determined location-specific conversion factors that allow us then to determine the BMD values relevant for osteoporosis diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that contrast administration cannot be used directly for CT diagnostics because the agent significantly alters BMD values. However, location-specific conversion factors can be established, which are likely to depend on additional parameters such as the weight and corresponding BMI of the patient.

The Thoracolumbar AOSpine Injury Score.

Study Design Survey of 100 worldwide spine surgeons. Objective To develop a spine injury score for the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System. Methods Each respondent was asked to numerically grade the severity of each variable of the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System. Using the results, as well as limited input from the AOSpine Trauma Knowledge Forum, the Thoracolumbar AOSpine Injury Score was developed. Results Beginning with 1 point for A1, groups A, B, and C were consecutively awarded an additional point (A1, 1 point; A2, 2 points; A3, 3 points); however, because of a significant increase in the severity between A3 and A4 and because the severity of A4 and B1 was similar, both A4 and B1 were awarded 5 points. An uneven stepwise increase in severity moving from N0 to N4, with a substantial increase in severity between N2 (nerve root injury with radicular symptoms) and N3 (incomplete spinal cord injury) injuries, was identified. Hence, each grade of neurologic injury was progressively given an additional point starting with 0 points for N0, and the substantial difference in severity between N2 and N3 injuries was recognized by elevating N3 to 4 points. Finally, 1 point was awarded to the M1 modifier (indeterminate posterolateral ligamentous complex injury). Conclusion The Thoracolumbar AOSpine Injury Score is an easy-to-use, data-driven metric that will allow for the development of a surgical algorithm to accompany the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System.

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

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

The surgical algorithm for the AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system.

PURPOSE: The goal of the current study is to establish a surgical algorithm to accompany the AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system. METHODS: A survey was sent to AOSpine members from the six AO regions of the world, and surgeons were asked if a patient should undergo an initial trial of conservative management or if surgical management was warranted. The survey consisted of controversial injury patterns. Using the results of the survey, a surgical algorithm was developed. RESULTS: The AOSpine Trauma Knowledge forum defined that the injuries in which less than 30% of surgeons would recommend surgical intervention should undergo a trial of non-operative care, and injuries in which 70% of surgeons would recommend surgery should undergo surgical intervention. Using these thresholds, it was determined that injuries with a thoracolumbar AOSpine injury score (TL AOSIS) of three or less should undergo a trial of conservative treatment, and injuries with a TL AOSIS of more than five should undergo surgical intervention. Operative or non-operative treatment is acceptable for injuries with a TL AOSIS of four or five. CONCLUSION: The current algorithm uses a meaningful injury classification and worldwide surgeon input to determine the initial treatment recommendation for thoracolumbar injuries. This allows for a globally accepted surgical algorithm for the treatment of thoracolumbar trauma.

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

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

AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system: fracture description, neurological status, and key modifiers.

STUDY DESIGN: Reliability and agreement study, retrospective case series. OBJECTIVE: To develop a widely accepted, comprehensive yet simple classification system with clinically acceptable intra- and interobserver reliability for use in both clinical practice and research. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although the Magerl classification and thoracolumbar injury classification system (TLICS) are both well-known schemes to describe thoracolumbar (TL) fractures, no TL injury classification system has achieved universal international adoption. This lack of consensus limits communication between clinicians and researchers complicating the study of these injuries and the development of treatment algorithms. METHODS: A simple and reproducible classification system of TL injuries was developed using a structured international consensus process. This classification system consists of a morphologic classification of the fracture, a grading system for the neurological status, and description of relevant patient-specific modifiers. Forty cases with a broad range of injuries were classified independently twice by group members 1 month apart and analyzed for classification reliability using the Kappa coefficient (κ). RESULTS: The morphologic classification is based on 3 main injury patterns: type A (compression), type B (tension band disruption), and type C (displacement/translation) injuries. Reliability in the identification of a morphologic injury type was substantial (κ= 0.72). CONCLUSION: The AOSpine TL injury classification system is clinically relevant according to the consensus agreement of our international team of spine trauma experts. Final evaluation data showed reasonable reliability and accuracy, but further clinical validation of the proposed system requires prospective observational data collection documenting use of the classification system, therapeutic decision making, and clinical follow-up evaluation by a large number of surgeons from different countries.

Lumbosacral dislocation: a review of the literature and current aspects of management.

Lumbosacral fracture dislocation is a very rare lesion and was first described by Watson-Jones in 1940. Two anatomical classifications are described in the literature, all other reports are case presentations. This fracture type is characterised by an antero- or retrolisthesis or a lateral translation of the 5th lumbar vertebra in relation to the sacrum. Biomechanics are discussed controversially. Most patients suffer from a high energy trauma with concomitant severe injuries. There is a high rate of additional neurological deficits. Fractures of the transverse process are thought to be sentinel fractures. MRI and CT scans are essential to detect the whole extent of the lesion. Circumferential fusion is recommended by several authors to regain stability at the lumbosacral junction.