Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for

  • Author or Editor: Lorin M. Benneker x
  • Refine by Access: all x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Sven Hoppe, Mathias Budmiger, Philipp Bissig, Emin Aghayev, and Lorin M. Benneker

OBJECTIVE

Vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty are effective treatment options for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures but are limited in correction of kyphotic deformity. Lordoplasty has been reported as an alternative, cost-effective, minimally invasive, percutaneous cement augmentation technique with good restoration of vertebral body height and alignment. The authors report on its clinical and radiological midterm results.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of patients treated with lordoplasty from 2002 to 2014. Inclusion criteria were clinical and radiological follow-up evaluations longer than 24 months. Radiographs were accessed regarding initial correction and progressive loss of reduction. Complications and reoperations were recorded. Actual pain level, pain relief immediately after surgery, autonomy, and subjective impression of improvement of posture were assessed by questionnaire.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients (46 women, 19 men, age range 38.9–86.2 years old) were treated with lordoplasty for 69 vertebral compression and insufficiency fractures. A significant correction of the vertebral kyphotic angle (mean 13°) and segmental kyphotic angle (mean 11°) over a mean follow-up of 33 months (range 24–108 months) was achieved (p < 0.001). On average, pain was relieved to 90% of the initial pain level. In 24% of the 65 patients a second spinal intervention was necessary: 16 distant (24.6%) and 7 adjacent (10.8%) new osteoporotic fractures, 4 instrumented stabilizations (6.2%), 1 new adjacent traumatic fracture (1.5%), and 1 distant microsurgical decompression (1.5%). Cement leakage occurred in 10.4% but was only symptomatic in 1 case.

CONCLUSIONS

Lordoplasty appeared safe and effective in midterm pain alleviation and restoration of kyphotic deformity in osteoporotic compression and insufficiency fractures. The outcomes of lordoplasty are consistent with other augmentation techniques.

Open access

Barry Ting Sheen Kweh, Jin W. Tee, F. Cumhur Oner, Klaus J. Schnake, Emiliano N. Vialle, Frank Kanziora, Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran, Marcel Dvorak, Jens R. Chapman, Lorin M. Benneker, Gregory Schroeder, and Alexander R. Vaccaro

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the genesis of the AO Spine Sacral and Pelvic Classification System in the context of historical sacral and pelvic grading systems.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify all existing sacral and pelvic fracture classification systems.

RESULTS

A total of 49 articles were included in this review, comprising 23 pelvic classification systems and 17 sacral grading schemes. The AO Spine Sacral and Pelvic Classification System represents both the evolutionary product of these historical systems and a reinvention of classic concepts in 5 ways. First, the classification introduces fracture types in a graduated order of biomechanical stability while also taking into consideration the neurological status of patients. Second, the traditional belief that Denis central zone III fractures have the highest rate of neurological deficit is not supported because this subgroup often includes a broad spectrum of injuries ranging from a benign sagittally oriented undisplaced fracture to an unstable “U-type” fracture. Third, the 1990 Isler lumbosacral system is adopted in its original format to divide injuries based on their likelihood of affecting posterior pelvic or spinopelvic stability. Fourth, new discrete fracture subtypes are introduced and the importance of bilateral injuries is acknowledged. Last, this is the first integrated sacral and pelvic classification to date.

CONCLUSIONS

The AO Spine Sacral and Pelvic Classification is a universally applicable system that redefines and reorders historical fracture morphologies into a rational hierarchy. This is the first classification to simultaneously address the biomechanical stability of the posterior pelvic complex and spinopelvic stability, while also taking into consideration neurological status. Further high-quality controlled trials are required prior to the inclusion of this novel classification within a validated scoring system to guide the management of sacral and pelvic injuries.

Open access

Mark J. Lambrechts, Gregory D. Schroeder, Brian A. Karamian, Jose A. Canseco, F. Cumhur Oner, Lorin M. Benneker, Richard J. Bransford, Frank Kandziora, Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran, Mohammad El-Sharkawi, Rishi Kanna, Andrei Fernandes Joaquim, Klaus Schnake, Christopher K. Kepler, Alexander R. Vaccaro, and

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.

Open access

Barry Ting Sheen Kweh, Jin Wee Tee, Sander Muijs, F. Cumhur Oner, Klaus John Schnake, Lorin Michael Benneker, Emiliano Neves Vialle, Frank Kanziora, Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran, Gregory Schroeder, Alexander R. Vaccaro, and

OBJECTIVE

Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty.

METHODS

A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participants’ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine.

RESULTS

In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms.