scholarly journals Do we have an ideal classification system for thoracolumbar and subaxial cervical spine injuries: what is the expert’s perspective?

Spinal Cord ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
H S Chhabra ◽  
R Kaul ◽  
V Kanagaraju
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Classification System ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Subaxial Cervical Spine ◽  
Spine Injuries

scholarly journals The classifications of subaxial cervical spine traumatic injuries. Part 4. AOSpine Subaxial Classification System

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10
Author(s):  
Oleksii S. Nekhlopochyn ◽  
Ievgenii I. Slynko ◽  
Vadim V. Verbov
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Treatment Strategy ◽  
Classification System ◽  
Neurological Status ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Subaxial Cervical Spine ◽  
Spine Injuries ◽  
Injury Classification

Cervical spine injuries are a fairly common consequence of mechanical impact on the human body. The subaxial level of the cervical spine accounts for approximately half to 2/3 of these injuries. Despite the numerous classification systems that exist for describing these injuries, the recommendations for treatment strategy are very limited, and currently none of them is universal and generally accepted. Consequently, treatment decisions are based on the individual experience of the specialist, but not on evidence or algorithms. While the classification system based on the mechanism of trauma originally proposed by B.L. Allen et al. and subsequently modified by J.H. Harris Jr et al., was comprehensive, but lacked evidence, which to some extent limited its clinical applicability. Similarly, the Subaxial Injury Classification System proposed by the Spine Trauma Group, had no distinct and clinically significant patterns of morphological damage. This fact hindered the standardization and unification of tactical approaches. As an attempt to solve this problem, in 2016 Alexander Vaccaro, together with AO Spine, proposed the AO Spine subaxial cervical spine injury classification system, using the principle of already existing AOSpine classification of thoracolumbar injuries. The aim of the project was to develop an effective system that provides clear, clinically relevant morphological descriptions of trauma patterns, which should contribute to the determination of treatment strategy. The proposed classification of cervical spine injuries at the subaxial level follows the same hierarchical approach as previous AO classifications, namely, it characterizes injuries based on 4 parameters: (1) injury morphology, (2) facet damage, (3) neurological status, and (4) specific modifiers. The morphology of injuries is divided into 3 subgroups of injuries: A (compression), B (flexion-distraction), and C (dislocations and displacements). Damage types A and B are divided into 5 (A0-A4) and 3 (B1-B3) subtypes, respectively. When describing damage of the facet joints, 4 subtypes are distinguished: F1 (fracture without displacement), F2 (unstable fracture), F3 (floating lateral mass) and F4 (dislocation). The system also integrates the assessment of neurological status, which is divided into 6 subtype). In addition, the classification includes 4 specific modifiers designed to better detail a number of pathological conditions. The performance evaluation of AOSpine SCICS showed a moderate to significant range of consistency and reproducibility. Currently, a quantitative scale for assessing the severity of classification classes has been proposed, which also, to a certain extent, contributes to decision-making regarding treatment strategy.

Subaxial Cervical Spine Injuries in Children and Adolescents

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert F. Murphy ◽  
Austin R. Davidson ◽  
Derek M. Kelly ◽  
William C. Warner ◽  
Jeffrey R. Sawyer
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Subaxial Cervical Spine ◽  
Spine Injuries

scholarly journals Subaxial cervical spine injuries: Outcomes after anterior corpectomy and instrumentation

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 843
Author(s):  
Ankit Madan ◽  
Manoj Thakur ◽  
Sachin Sud ◽  
Vaibhav Jain ◽  
RudraPratap Singh Thakur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Subaxial Cervical Spine ◽  
Anterior Corpectomy ◽  
Spine Injuries

scholarly journals Currently available classification systems for lower cervical spine injuries. Part 1. Overview of the most popular scales and classifications

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. A. Grin ◽  
I. S. Lvov ◽  
S. L. Arakelyan ◽  
A. E. Talypov ◽  
A. Yu. Kordonsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Classification System ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Scoring Systems ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Spine Injury ◽  
Lower Cervical Spine ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Spine Injuries

This article provides a detailed illustrated description of currently available classification and scoring systems for lower cervical spine injuries (including Allen–Fergusson, J. Harris et al., C. Argenson et al., and AOSpine classifications, Subaxial Injury Classification System and Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score). The present review primarily aims to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each classification system. 

scholarly journals CURRENTLY AVAILABLE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS FOR LOWER CERVICAL SPINE INJURIES. PART 2. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF STUDIES ON THE RELIABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY OF EXISTING SCALES

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 28-38
Author(s):  
А. А. Grin ◽  
I. S. Lvov ◽  
S. L. Arakelyan ◽  
А. E. Talypov ◽  
А. Yu. Kordonsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Classification System ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Lower Cervical Spine ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Spine Injuries ◽  
Injury Classification

The study objective is to review the Russian and foreign studies and to identify an optimal classification system for lower cervical spine injuries. Materials and methods. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We conducted a search for articles published in English (PubMed database) and Russian (eLIBRARY.ru). The inclusion criteria were as follows: available full text, patient age ≥18 years, and information on one of the validation phases for classifications according to L. Audige et al. Results. A total of 30 articles were eligible. Of them, 3 studies were published in Russian (by one group of authors); however, they didn’t contain required statistical parameters and had duplicated data; therefore, they were excluded from the analysis. Out of 27 articles published in English, 8 articles met all the criteria and were included into the systematic review. The AOSpine and Subaxial Injury Classification Systems demonstrated the highest reliability and reproducibility of the results. The Allen–Fergusson classification has lower intraobserver and interobserver agreement coefficients, but it can give a clearer visual representation of injuries. We also assessed J. Harris classification system. The reliability of the scale developed by С. Argenson et al. was not evaluated. The analyzed publications contained no data for full evaluation of the Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score. Our analysis clearly demonstrated the need for a more thorough evaluation of all available scales and classifications. This study should be multicenter and involve experts with different levels of experience (from residents to experienced spinal surgeons). Moreover, it should analyze not only the reproducibility of individual classifications, but also the aspects of learning and the relationship between individual scales and systems. The main study limitations included insufficient number of publications, small sample sizes, heterogeneity of groups, and differences in the experience of experts. Conclusion. The AOSpine and Subaxial Injury Classification Systems are the most reliable classification systems. However, the data available in literature is not sufficient for a full comparison of all existing scales and systems. Further multicenter studies on the reliability of classifications are needed to select an optimal one.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document