Dataset Information

A validated classification for external immobilization of the cervical spine.

ABSTRACT: Study Design Interobserver and intraobserver reliability study. Objective The aim of this study is to validate a new classification system of external cervical spine immobilization devices by measuring the interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Methods A classification system, with five main categories, based on the anatomical regions on which the device supports, was created. A total of 28 independent observers classified 50 photographs of different devices, designed to immobilize the cervical spine according to the new proposed classification system. At least 2 weeks later, the same devices were classified again in a new random order. Before and after the classification, all the participants answered questions about the usefulness of the proposed classification. Results The mean interobserver and intraobserver agreement Fleiss' kappa was 0.88 and 0.91, respectively. Both are, according to the interpretation described by Landis and Koch, "almost perfect." A majority of the participators answered that they needed a classification (89%) and considered the classification to be clear (96%). All the participants considered the classification to be useful in clinical practice. Conclusion This study showed that the new classification of external cervical spine immobilizers, based on anatomical support areas, has an excellent interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Furthermore, the study participants considered the proposed classification to be clear and useful in clinical practice. As the majority of patients with cervical spine injuries are treated with external immobilization devices, this new classification system can improve the closed treatment of cervical spine injuries in daily clinical practice. Furthermore, it makes reproducible comparisons between groups possible, which are essential for further evolution of evidence-based spine care.

SUBMITTER: Holla M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3836954 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study designGlobal cross-sectional survey.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to validate the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification by examining the perceived injury severity by surgeon across AO geographical regions and practice experience.Summary of background dataPrevious subaxial cervical spine injury classifications have been limited by subpar interobserver reliability and clinical applicability. In an attempt to create a universally validated scheme with prognostic value, AO Spine established a subaxial cervical spine injury classification involving four elements: injury morphology, facet injury involvement, neurologic status, and case-specific modifiers.MethodsA survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. Respondents graded the severity of each variable of the classification system on a scale from zero (low severity) to 100 (high severity). Primary outcome was to assess differences in perceived injury severity for each injury type over geographic regions and level of practice experience.ResultsA total of 189 responses were received. Overall, the classification system exhibited a hierarchical progression in subtype injury severity scores. Only three subtypes showed a significant difference in injury severity score among geographic regions: F3 (floating lateral mass fracture, P = 0.04), N3 (incomplete spinal cord injury, P = 0.03), and M2 (critical disk herniation, P = 0.04). When stratified by surgeon experience, pairwise comparison showed only two morphological subtypes, B1 (bony posterior tension band injury, P = 0.02) and F2 (unstable facet fracture, P = 0.03), and one neurologic subtype (N3, P = 0.02) exhibited a significant difference in injury severity score.ConclusionThe AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System has shown to be reliable and suitable for proper patient management. The study shows this classification is substantially generalizable by geographic region and surgeon experience, and provides a consistent method of communication among physicians while covering the majority of subaxial cervical spine traumatic injuries.Level of Evidence: 4.

Project description:BackgroundBicyclists are vulnerable road users. The aim of this paper was to describe all bicycle-related traumatic cervical spine injuries (CSIs) in the South-East region of Norway (2015-2019), and to investigate whether certain types of CSIs are typical for bicyclists.MethodsRetrospective cohort study of prospectively collected registry data of all CSIs in the South-East region of Norway (3.0 million inhabitants), from 2015 to 2019. Patient characteristics, injury types, and treatment were summarized with descriptive statistics. Bayesian multivariable logistic regression was used to identify potential factors associated with occipital condyle fractures (OC-Fx) or odontoid fractures (OFx).ResultsDuring the five-year study period, 2,162 patients with CSIs were registered, and 261 (12%) were bicycle-related. The incidence of bicycle-related CSIs was 1.7/100,000 person-years. The median age of the patients with bicycle-related CSIs was 55 (IQR: 22) years, 83% were male, 71% used a helmet, 16% were influenced by ethanol, 12% had a concomitant cervical spinal cord injury (SCI), and 64% sustained multiple traumas. The three most common bicycle-related CSIs were C6/C7 fracture (Fx) (28%), occipital condyle Fx (OC-Fx) (23%) and C5/C6 Fx (19%). Patients with bicycle-related CSIs compared to patients with non-bicycle related CSIs were younger, more often male, had fewer comorbidities, more likely multiple traumas, more often had OC-Fx, and less often sustained an odontoid fracture (OFx). Multivariable logistic regression of potential risk factors for OC-Fx demonstrated a significantly increased risk of OC-Fx for bicyclists compared to non-bicyclists (OR=2.8).The primary treatment for bicycle-related CSIs was external immobilization in 187/261 (71.6%) cases, open surgical fixation in 44/261 (16.8%), and no treatment in 30/261 (11.5%).ConclusionBicycle crashes are a frequent cause of CSIs in the Norwegian population and should be of concern to the public society. The three most common bicycle-related CSIs were C6/C7 fracture, occipital condyle fracture and C5/C6 fracture.

Project description:The traditional treatment for primary anterior shoulder dislocations has been immobilization in a sling with the arm in a position of adduction and internal rotation. However, recent basic science and clinical data have suggested recurrent instability may be reduced with immobilization in external rotation after primary shoulder dislocation.We performed a randomized controlled trial to compare the (1) frequency of recurrent instability and (2) disease-specific quality-of-life scores after treatment of first-time shoulder dislocation using either immobilization in external rotation or immobilization in internal rotation in a group of young patients.Sixty patients younger than 35 years of age with primary, traumatic, anterior shoulder dislocations were randomized (concealed, computer-generated) to immobilization with either an internal rotation sling (n = 29) or an external rotation brace (n = 31) at a mean of 4 days after closed reduction (range, 1-7 days). Patients with large bony lesions or polytrauma were excluded. The two groups were similar at baseline. Both groups were immobilized for 4 weeks with identical therapy protocols thereafter. Blinded assessments were completed by independent observers for a minimum of 12 months (mean, 25 months; range, 12-43 months). Recurrent instability was defined as a second documented anterior dislocation or multiple episodes of shoulder subluxation severe enough for the patient to request surgical stabilization. Validated disease-specific quality-of-life data (Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index [WOSI], American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons evaluation [ASES]) were also collected. Ten patients (17%, five from each group) were lost to followup. Reported compliance with immobilization in both groups was excellent (80%).With the numbers available, there was no difference in the rate of recurrent instability between groups: 10 of 27 patients (37%) with the external rotation brace versus 10 of 25 patients (40%) with the sling redislocated or developed symptomatic recurrent instability (p = 0.41). WOSI scores were not different between groups (p = 0.74) and, although the difference in ASES scores approached statistical significance (p = 0.05), the magnitude of this difference was small and of uncertain clinical importance.Despite previous published findings, our results show immobilization in external rotation did not confer a significant benefit versus sling immobilization in the prevention of recurrent instability after primary anterior shoulder dislocation. Further studies with larger numbers may elucidate whether functional outcomes, compliance, or comfort with immobilization can be improved with this device.Level I, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Dataset Information

A validated classification for external immobilization of the cervical spine.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets