Agnita Stadhouder, Constantinus F. M. Buckens, Herman R. Holtslag and F. Cumhur Öner
Valid outcome assessment tools specific for spinal trauma patients are necessary to establish the efficacy of different treatment options. So far, no validated specific outcome measures are available for this patient population. The purpose of this study was to assess the current state of outcome measurement in spinal trauma patients and to address the question of whether this group is adequately served by current disease-specific and generic health-related quality-of-life instruments.
A number of widely used outcome measures deemed most appropriate were reviewed, and their applicability to spinal trauma outcome discussed. An overview of recent movements in the theoretical foundations of outcome assessment, as it pertains to spinal trauma patients has been attempted, along with a discussion of domains important for spinal trauma.
Commonly used outcome measures that are recommended for use in trauma patients were reviewed from the perspective of spinal trauma. The authors further sought to select a number of spine trauma–relevant domains from the WHO's comprehensive International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a benchmark for assessing the content coverage of the commonly used outcome measurements reviewed.
The study showed that there are no psychometrically validated outcome measurements for the spinal trauma population and there are no commonly used outcome measures that provide adequate content coverage for spinal trauma domains.
Spinal trauma patients are currently followed either as a subset of the polytrauma population in the acute and early postacute setting or as a subset of neurological injury in the long-term revalidation medicine setting.
Spine trauma: the challenges in assessing outcomes
Michael G. Fehlings and Jefferson R. Wilson
Gregory D. Schroeder, Christopher K. Kepler, John D. Koerner, Jens R. Chapman, Carlo Bellabarba, F. Cumhur Oner, Max Reinhold, Marcel F. Dvorak, Bizhan Aarabi, Luiz Vialle, Michael G. Fehlings, Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran, Frank Kandziora, Klaus J. Schnake and Alexander R. Vaccaro
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.
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.
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.
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.