Reliability and Agreement of Different Spine Fracture Classification Systems: An Independent Intraobserver and Interobserver Study.

OBJECTIVE: Currently, no spinal classification system has achieved universal acceptance. Therefore, it is important to choose a reliable classification within clinical practice. The objective of this study was to determine and compare the intraobserver and interobserver agreement of the Load Sharing Classification (LSC), the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System (TLICS), and the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System. METHODS: In this web-based intraobserver and interobserver study (www.spine.hostei.com), plain radiographs and computed tomographic scans of traumatic thoracolumbar fractures (T12-L2) were evaluated. By use of a questionnaire, fractures were classified according to the LSC, the TLICS, and the AOSpine classification. Data were analyzed with SPSS (Version 21, 76 Chicago, Illinois, USA). Intraobserver and interobserver agreement was determined by the Cohen κ. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: Data from 91 patients were classified twice by 7 board-certified spine surgeons. The intraobserver and interobserver reliability considering the LSC total score was noted as fair (intraobserver/interobserver reliability: κ = 0.26/0.22). Considering the resulting TLICS total score, a moderate intraobserver agreement (κ = 0.41) was noted, whereas the interobserver results presented only fair reliability (κ = 0.23). In contrast to the LSC and the TLICS, the AOSpine classification showed substantial agreement considering the fracture type (A;B;C) (intraobserver/interobserver reliability: κ = 0.71/0.61) and moderate agreement considering the fracture subtype (e.g., A0;A1;…;B1;…) (intraobserver/interobserver reliability: κ = 0.57/0.48). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the reliability of the AOSpine fracture classification is superior to the TLICS and the LSC. Therefore, this classification system could best be applied within clinical practice.

Two-Nation Comparison of Classification and Treatment of Thoracolumbar Fractures: An Internet-Based Multicenter Study Among Spine Surgeons.

STUDY DESIGN: Web-based multicenter study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess and compare the management strategy for traumatic thoracolumbar fractures between German and Dutch spine surgeons. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To date, there is no evidence-based treatment algorithm for thoracolumbar spine fractures, thereby an international controversy concerning optimal treatment exists. METHODS: In this web-based multicenter study (www.spine.hostei.com), computed tomography scans of traumatic thoracolumbar fractures (T12-L2) were evaluated by German and Dutch spine surgeons. Supplementary case-specific information such as age, sex, height, weight, neurological status, and injury mechanism were provided.By using a questionnaire, fractures were classified according to the AO-Magerl Classification, followed by 6 questions concerning the treatment algorithm. Data were analyzed using SPSS (Version 21, 76, Chicago, IL). The interobserver agreement was determined by using Cohen κ. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: Twelve surgeons (6 per country) evaluated each 91 cases. The fractures were classified as AO Type A in 82% (898 votes), Type B in 14% (150 votes), and Type C in 4% (44 votes). No significant difference concerning the AO Classification between German and Dutch spine surgeons was found. Overall German spine surgeons had a lower threshold concerning the indication for surgical treatment (Ger 87% vs. NL 30%; P < 0.05). There was a consensus about operative stabilization of AO Type B and C injuries and injuries with neurologic deficit, whereas a discrepancy in the therapeutic algorithm for AO Type A fractures was observed. This difference was most pronounced regarding the indication for posterior (Ger 96.6%; NL 41.2%; P < 0.05) and circumferential stabilization (Ger 53.4%; NL 0%; P < 0.05) for burst fractures. CONCLUSION: There is a consensus to stabilize AO Type B and C fractures, whereas country-specific differences in the treatment of Type A fractures, especially in case of burst fractures, occur. Prospective, controlled multicenter outcome studies may provide more evidence in optimal treatment for thoracolumbar fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.