Repeatability of TLICS scoring system used in the thoracolumbar spine injury

Prospective clinical assessment of the interobserver reliability of the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLISS) in a series of consecutive patients. To evaluate the time-dependent changes in interobserver reliability of the TLISS system. Reliability of an injury classification system is fundamental to its usefulness. A system that can be taught and implemented effectively will be highly reliable. Vaccaro et al recently introduced a novel thoracolumbar injury classification and treatment recommendation system called the "Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score." An improvement over previous traumatic thoracolumbar systems, it has been designed to be both descriptive as well as prognostic. To define better the benefits of this system, the purpose of our study was to assess the time-dependent changes associated with implementation of the TLISS system at 1 institution. Seventy-one consecutive patients presenting with acute thoracolumbar injury were prospectively assessed at a single training institution. Plain radiographs, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging were independently reviewed, and each case was classified according to the TLISS system. Seven months later, 25 consecutive patients presenting with acute thoracolumbar injuries were prospectively assessed at the same institution. TLISS classification criteria were again applied after reviewing plain radiographs, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. The unweighted Cohen kappa coefficient and Spearman correlation values were calculated to assess interobserver reliability at each assessment time. Interobserved reliability at the time of the first assessment was then compared with interobserver reliability from the second assessment. Statistically significant (P < 0.05) improvements in interobserver reliability were observed. Both the unweighted Cohen kappa coefficient and Spearman correlation values increased across all comparable fields: TLISS subscores (mechanism of injury, posterior ligamentous complex), total TLISS, and TLISS management scores. The significant improvements observed in interobserver reliability of the TLISS system suggest that the classification system can be taught effectively and be readily incorporated into daily practice. The strong correlation values obtained at the second assessment time suggest that the TLISS system may be reproducibly used to describe thoracolumbar injuries.

Background:Despite numerous attempts at classifying thoracolumbar spinal injuries, there remains no consensus on a single unifying algorithm of management. The ideal system should provide diagnostic and prognostic information, exhibit adequate reliability and validity and be easily applicable to clinical practice. The purpose of this study is to assess the reliability and validity of two novel classification systems for thoracolumbar fractures – the Thoracolumbar Injury Severity Score (TLISS) and the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) – and also to discuss potential efforts towards research in the future.Matereials and Methods:Seventy-one patients with thoracolumbar fractures were prospectively assessed by surgeons with different levels of training and experience (attending orthopedic surgeon, attending neurosurgeon, spine fellows, senior level and junior level residents) at a single institution. Plain radiographs, CT and MRI imaging were used to classify these injuries using the TLISS system. Seven months later, 25 consecutive injuries were prospectively assessed with the TLISS and TLICS systems. Unweighted Cohen's kappa coefficients and Spearman's correlation values were calculated to assess inter-observer reliability and validity at each point in time.Results:For both the TLISS and TLICS algorithms, the inter-rater kappa statistics for all of the subgroups demonstrated moderate-to-substantial reliability (0.45-0.74), although there were no significant differences among the shared subgroups. The kappa score of the TLISS system was greater than that of the TLICS system for injury mechanism/ morphology. Correlation values were also greater across all subgroups (P ≤0.01). Statistically significant improvements in TLISS inter-observer reliability were observed across all TLISS fields (P <0.05). The TLISS and TLICS schemes both demonstrated excellent validity.Conclusion:The TLISS and TLICS scales both exhibited substantial reliability and validity. However, the TLISS system displayed greater inter-observer correlation than did the TLICS and demonstrated significant improvements in reliability over time.

The Thoracolumbar Injury Severity Score (TLISS) and the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) were prospectively evaluated. To compare the reliability and validity of the TLISS and TLICS schemes to determine the importance of injury mechanism and morphology to the identification and treatment of thoracolumbar fractures. Two novel algorithms have been developed for the categorization and management of thoracolumbar injuries: the TLISS system emphasizing injury mechanism and the TLICS scheme involving injury morphology. The clinical and radiographic findings of 25 patients with thoracolumbar fractures were prospectively presented to 5 groups of surgeons with disparate levels of training and experience with spinal trauma. These injuries were consecutively scored, first using the TLISS and then 3 months later with the TLICS. The recommended treatments proposed by the 2 schemes were compared with the actual management of each patient. For both algorithms, the interrater kappa statistics of all subgroups (mechanism/morphology, status of the posterior ligaments, total score, predicted management) were within the range of moderate to substantial reproducibility (0.45-0.74), and there were no statistically significant differences noted between the respective kappa values. Interrater correlation was higher for the TLISS paradigm on mechanism/morphology, integrity of the posterior ligaments, and proposed management (P < or = 0.01). The TLISS and TLICS schemes both exhibited excellent overall validity. Although both schemes were noted to have substantial reproducibility and validity, our results indicate the TLISS is more reliable than the TLICS, suggesting that the mechanism of trauma may be a more valuable parameter than fracture morphology for the classification and treatment thoracolumbar injuries. Since these injury characteristics are interrelated and are critical to the maintenance of spinal stability, we think that both concepts should be considered during the assessment and management of these patients.

Study DesignA new classification system for throacolumbar spine injury, Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) was evaluated retrospectively.PurposeTo evaluate intrarater and interrater reliability of newly proposed TLICS schemes and to estimate validity of TLICS's final treatment recommendation.Overview of LiteratureDespite numerous literature about thoracolumbar spine injury classifications, there is no consensus regarding the optimal system.MethodsUsing plain radiographs, computed tomography scanning, magnetic resonance imaging, and medical records, 3 clssifiers, consisting of 2 spine surgeons and 1 senior orthopaedic surgery resident, reviewed 114 clinical thoracolumbar spine injury cases retrospectively to classify and calculate injury severity score according to TLICS. This process were repeated on 4 weeks intervals and the scores were then compared with type of treatment that patient ultimately received.ResultsThe intrarater reliability of TLICS was substantial agreement on total score and injury morphology, almost perfect agreement on integrity of the posterior ligament complex (PLC) and neurologic status. The interrater reliability was substantial agreement on injury morphology and integrity of the PLC, moderate agreement on total score, almost perfect agreement on neurologic status. The TLICS schems exhibited satisfactory overall validity in terms of clinical decision making.ConclusionsThe TLICS was demonstrated acceptable intrarater and interrater reliability and satisfactory validity in terms of treatment recommendation.

To compare the treatment recommendations of the thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score system and the thoracolumbar Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen spine injury score in case of thoracolumbar spine injury. The cross-sectional study was conducted at the Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Institute of Trauma, Karachi, from July to December 2023, and comprised patients aged at least 18 irrespective of gender, who had traumatic thoracic and lumbar vertebral spine fractures. Data regarding age, gender, mode of trauma, findings of neurological examination and imaging was collected. All cases were independently scored by an experienced spine surgeon, and a radiologist provided standardised imaging interpretation. The scorers were blinded to clinical outcomes and treatment decisions. Interrater agreement between thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score system and the thoracolumbar Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen spine injury score was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient. Data was analysed using SPSS 23. Of the 335 patients with mean age 32.24±13.32 years, 279(83.3%) were males. The most common mode of trauma was fall from height 189(56.4%), and the most common site of fracture was L1 vertebrae 109(32.5%). Based on the thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score system, the most common fracture morphology was burst fracture 257(76.7%). The most common fracture type based on the thoracolumbar Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen spine injury score was Type A compression injuries 300(89.6%). The thoracolumbar Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen spine injury score had more patients in the grey zone 30(9%) compared to thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score system 22(6.6%). Treatment recommendations were the same in both the classification systems for 306(91.3%) patients (Cohen's kappa = 0.812, p<0.001). There was no significant difference between the treatment recommendations suggested by the thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score system and the thoracolumbar Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen spine injury score. The differences in grey zone classification highlighted the complexity of thoracolumbar injury assessment.

OBJECTIVE The Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) system was developed to streamline injury assessment and guide surgical decision making. To the best of the authors' knowledge, external validation in the pediatric age group has not been undertaken prior to this report. METHODS This study evaluated the use of the TLICS in a large retrospective series of children and adolescents treated at 4 pediatric medical centers (Texas Children's Hospital, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Riley Children's Hospital, and Doernbecher Children's Hospital). A total of 147 patients treated for traumatic thoracic or lumbar spine trauma between February 1, 2002, and September 1, 2015, were included in this study. Clinical and radiographic data were evaluated. Injuries were classified using American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) status, Denis classification, and TLICS. RESULTS A total of 102 patients (69%) were treated conservatively, and 45 patients (31%) were treated surgically. All patients but one in the conservative group were classified as ASIA E. In this group, 86/102 patients (84%) had Denis type compression injuries. The TLICS in the conservative group ranged from 1 to 10 (mean 1.6). Overall, 93% of patients matched TLICS conservative treatment recommendations (score ≤ 3). No patients crossed over to the surgical group in delayed fashion. In the surgical group, 26/45 (58%) were ASIA E, whereas 19/45 (42%) had neurological deficits (ASIA A, B, C, or D). One of 45 (2%) patients was classified with Denis type compression injuries; 25/45 (56%) were classified with Denis type burst injuries; 14/45 (31%) were classified with Denis type seat belt injuries; and 5/45 (11%) were classified with Denis type fracture-dislocation injuries. The TLICS ranged from 2 to 10 (mean 6.4). Eighty-two percent of patients matched TLICS surgical treatment recommendations (score ≥ 5). No patients crossed over to the conservative management group. Eight patients (8/147, 5%) had a calculated TLICS of 4, which meant they were candidates for surgery or conservative therapy by TLICS criteria. Excluding these patients, the degree of agreement between TLICS and surgeon decision was deemed to be very good (κ = 0.878). CONCLUSIONS The TLICS results and recommendations matched treatment in 96% of conservative group cases. In the surgical group, TLICS recommendations matched treatment in 93% of cases. The TLICS recommendations and surgeon decision making displayed very good concordance. The TLICS appears to be effective in the classification of thoracic and lumbar spine injuries and in guiding treatment in the pediatric age group.

Over 1000 patients with traumatic paraplegia or tetraplegia and many more with fractures and dislocations of the spine without damage to the central nervous system have been observed and treated at the Sheffield Spinal Injuries Centre. The vertebral lesions with or without injury to the spinal cord or nerve roots have been classified on the basis of the clinical and roentgenographic findings into five groups: 1. Pure flexion which causes a wedge fracture which is stable. 2. Flexion-rotation which produces an unstable fracture-dislocation with rupture of tue posterior ligament complex, separation of the spinous processes, a slice fracture near the upper border of the lower vertebra, and dislocation of the lower articular processes of the upper vertebra. 3. Extension which causes rupture of the intervertebral disc and the anterior common ligament along with avulsion of a small bone fragment from the anterior border of the dislocated vertebra. The dislocation almost always reduces spontaneously and is stable in flexion. 4. Vertebral compression which results in a fracture of the end plate as the nucleus of the intervertebral disc is forced into the vertebral body and causes it to burst with outward displacement of fragments of the body. Since the ligaments remain intact this comminuted fracture is stable. 5. Shearing which results in forward displacement of the whole vertebra and an unstable fracture of the articular processes or pedicles. Accurate diagnosis and prognosis of the neurological lesion depend on knowledge of the anatomy of the spinal cord and nerve roots, a careful neurological examination shortly after the original injury and repeated examinations thereafter, comparison of the level of spinal injury with the level of paraplegia or tetraplegia, differentiation between paraplegia and tetraplegia of immediate and delayed onset, and the appropriate therapy of the various types and levels of lesion. Simple wedge fractures were treated by bed rest for two to three weeks, mobilization of the back, and ambulation with a back support. Rotational fracture-dislocations in the cervical, thoracolumbar, or lumbar spine were almost invariably associated with tetraplegia or paraplegia. Cervical fracture-dislocations with or without tetraplegia were treated by skull-caliper traction. Thoracolumbar or lumbar fracture-dislocations without paraplegia were treated on a plaster bed for twelve weeks followed by a back support for a few weeks. The thoracolumbar fracture-dislocations with paraplegia were never treated by the plaster bed method but rather by open reduction of the dislocation, and maintenance of the reduction by internal fixation with double plating of the spinous processes. Spontaneous fusion was sufficiently advanced after eight to twelve weeks to get the patient out of bed. If the plates cut out of the bone after twelve weeks, they were removed. Patients with loss of sensation resulting from paraplegia or tetraplegia were turned every two hours to avoid pressure sores. Extension dislocations in the cervical spine, if they had reduced spontaneously, were fitted with a collar to hold the head and neck in sligh flexion for a period of eight to twelve weeks. For dislocations in this region which had not reduced spontaneously, manual manipulation under endotracheal anesthesia was employed. Reduction was maintained by skull tongs applied prior to manipulation. If after four weeks there was roentgenographic evidence of new bone indicating Spontaneous fusion, traction was continued for four to six weeks more followed by a neck collar for an additional six weeks. If new bone did not appear on the roentgenograms after four weeks, anterior fusion was performed followed by skull traction for an additional eight weeks. Vertical compression burst fractures in the cervical spine were treated by skull traction for six weeks followed by a neck collar. In the lumbar spine, burst fractures without paraplegia were treated by immobilization in a plaster bed for eight to twelve weeks followed by back support. The plaster bed was never used in burst fractures with paraplegia. Shear fractures were always associated with complete paraplegia. These fractures were usually stable and did not require operative reduction except when the displacement was great.

Thoracolumbar fractures are the most common kind of spine injury in children. Several types of spine injury can occur, and for this reason, treatment algorithms have been put in place for the management of these patients. At present, the thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score system (TLICS) and the thoracolumbar AOSpine injury score (AOSpine score) aimed at providing treatment recommendations. We aimed to assess the reliability, in children, of the TLICS scoring and AOSpine scoring systems, and to define the superiority of one of the methods of scoring, to spread its use in routine clinical management in the pediatric spine trauma. A retrospective chart review of consecutive children admitted to a Level 1 trauma center for traumatic thoracolumbar fractures, between 2006 and 2019, was performed. We compared the management we performed in clinical practice in children with spine trauma, to the decisional algorithms based on the TLICS and AOSpine scores. According to these scores, surgical treatment should be performed when the TLICS score ≥ 5 and the AOSpine score > 5; and surgical or conservative treatment was considered reasonable when the TLICS score = 4 and the AOSpine score = 4 or 5. Surgical indications were based on the clinical status, the anatomy of the fracture, and the risk of sagittal imbalance of the growing spine. Fifty-four patients met the inclusion criteria. We demonstrated that both the AOSpine score and the TLICS scores had a significant correlation for surgical management decision of spine trauma (p < 0.0001). We found a high concordance between surgical decision making in the pediatric clinical practice and the TLICS score. In our pediatric cohort, there were significantly more patients with TLICS ≥ 5 (n = 47, 87%) than with AOSpine score > 5 (n = 26, 46%, p < 0.0001). There were significantly more patients with TLICS ≥ 4 (n = 53, 98%), than with AOSpine score ≥ 4 (n = 42, 77%, p = 0.001). ConclusionsThe TLICS score was significantly more appropriate than the AOSpine score, for the surgical treatment decision in children, especially when considering the future risk of sagittal imbalance.

Case series. To investigate if the thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score (TLICS) system is effective in evaluating low lumbar injuries. The TLICS classification has been used by spine traumatologists since its introduction in 2006. The classification is predictable and consistent when dealing with thoracolumbar injuries. It is not known if the classification is effective in dealing with low lumbar injuries that tend to behave differently than thoracolumbar injuries. TLICS is yet to be clinically validated. There are no reports of its use for low lumbar injuries alone. For this case series, 20 low lumbar injuries were graded using the TLICS system by 15 fellowship-trained orthopedic spine and neurosurgeons. Interobserver reliability was graded using κ values. The reviewers were also asked 4 clinical questions regarding diagnosis and treatment of these injuries. When using the TLICS system for low lumbar injuries, there was "fair" reliability among the reviewers. Concerning the final TLICS score, there was 28% agreement with a κ of 0.245. Concerning fracture morphology, there was 58% agreement with a κ value of 0.394. When evaluating the posterior ligamentous complex, there was 56% agreement with a κ value of 0.328. The reviewers did agree consistently on determining the patient's neurological status. The data showed 94% agreement with a κ of 0.818. When looking at L3 injuries by themselves, the reliability of TLICS improved significantly. The authors think that there are factors involved in treating low lumbar injuries that are not inclusive to the TLICS system. Overall, there was only "fair" reliability for low lumbar injuries. The maintenance of lordosis and global sagittal alignment is paramount when dealing with low lumbar injuries and not considered in TLICS. L3 injuries tend to behave like thoracolumbar injuries but there is a wide variation in classification between L4-L5 and thoracolumbar injuries. 4.

ObjectiveFor improving the drawbacks of previous thoracolumbar spine trauma classification, the Spine Trauma Study Group was developed new classification, Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS). The simplicity of this scoring system makes it useful clinical application. However, considering criteria of Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA), the usefulness of TLICS system is still controversial in the treatment decision of thoracolumbar spine injury.MethodsTotal 100 patients, who admitted to our hospital due to acute traumatic thoracolumbar injury, were enrolled. In 45, surgical treatment was performed and surgical treatment was decided following the criteria of HIRA in all patients. With assessing of TLICS score and Denis's classification, the treatment guidelines of TLICS and Denis's classification were applied to the criteria of Korean HIRA.ResultsAccording to the Denis's three-column spine system, numbers of patients with 2 or 3 column injuries were 94. Only 45 of 94 patients (47.9%) with middle column injury fulfilled the criteria of HIRA. According to TLICS system, operation required fractures (score>4) were 31 and all patients except one fulfilled the criteria of HIRA. Conservative treatment required fractures (score<4) were 52 and borderline fracture (score=4) were 17.ConclusionThe TLICS system is very useful system for decision of surgical indication in acute traumatic thoracolumbar injury. However, the decision of treatment in TLICS score 4 should be carefully considered. Furthermore, definite criteria of posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) injury may be necessary because the differentiation of PLC injury between TLICS score 2 and 3 is very difficult.

The aim of this multicentre study was to determine whether the recently introduced AOSpine Classification and Injury Severity System has better interrater and intrarater reliability than the already existing Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) for thoracolumbar spine injuries. Clinical and radiological data of 50 consecutive patients admitted at a single centre with a diagnosis of an acute traumatic thoracolumbar spine injury were distributed to eleven attending spine surgeons from six different institutions in the form of PowerPoint presentation, who classified them according to both classifications. After time span of 6weeks, cases were randomly rearranged and sent again to same surgeons for re-classification. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability for each component of TLICS and new AOSpine classification were evaluated using Fleiss Kappa coefficient (k value) and Spearman rank order correlation. Moderate interrater and intrarater reliability was seen for grading fracture type and integrity of posterior ligamentous complex (Fracture type: k=0.43±0.01 and 0.59±0.16, respectively, PLC: k=0.47±0.01 and 0.55±0.15, respectively), and fair to moderate reliability (k=0.29±0.01 interobserver and 0.44+/0.10 intraobserver, respectively) for total score according to TLICS. Moderate interrater (k=0.59±0.01) and substantial intrarater reliability (k=0.68±0.13) was seen for grading fracture type regardless of subtype according to AOSpine classification. Near perfect interrater and intrarater agreement was seen concerning neurological status for both the classification systems. Recently proposed AOSpine classification has better reliability for identifying fracture morphology than the existing TLICS. Additional studies are clearly necessary concerning the application of these classification systems across multiple physicians at different level of training and trauma centers to evaluate not only their reliability and reproducibility, but also the other attributes, especially the clinical significance of a good classification system.

BackgroundThe thoracic segment represents the most common area fractured in the whole spine. Complete neurological deficits are commonly associated with thoracic injuries possibly due to a relatively small canal diameter as compared to the cervical or lumbar spine. Magnetic resonance is the gold standard of imaging, especially in patients suffering from neurological deficits as well as in soft tissue assessment mainly the disc, ligaments, and neural elements. The thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score system (TLICS) and the thoracolumbar AO Spine injury score (TLAOSIS), are two scoring systems designed to help surgeons in management plans of thoraco-lumbar injuries. The aim of our study is to compare these two main thoracolumbar injury classification systems in deciding the management strategies in thoraco-lumbar injuries. This study is a retrospective study that included 70 patients (42 males and 28 females) who suffered acute traumatic vertebral fractures. All patients underwent MRI including T1WI, T2W and STIR sequences. The MRI was viewed by two independent radiologists of 5- and 10-years’ experience and compared to surgical decisions.ResultsOut of 70 patients included in our study, the TL AOSIS matched treatment recommendation in 62 patients (88.6%), and the TLICS matched in 60 patients (85.7%). The TL AOSIS achieved sensitivity 95%, specificity 80%, while the TLICS achieved sensitivity 72.2%, specificity 100%.ConclusionBoth TL AOSIS and TLICS have very close results in their reliability for guiding treatment strategy, yet TL AOSIS matched treatment recommendation more than TLICS, with sensitivity more than TLICS, while TLICS had more specificity.

Is the Thoracolumbar AOSpine Injury Score Superior to the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score for Guiding the Treatment Strategy of Thoracolumbar Spine Injuries?

The thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score (TLICS) system help surgeons decide whether patients should undergo initial operative treatment or nonoperative treatment. However, the best treatment for patients with TLICS 4 fracture remains unknown. The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors for nonoperative treatment failure in patients with TLICS 4 fracture and establish treatment standards for TLICS 4 fractures. This study included 44 patients with TLICS 4 fracture who initially received nonoperative treatment. We divided these patients into two groups: the successful nonoperative treatment group included 18 patients, and the operative treatment group after nonoperative treatment failure included 26 patients. In multiple logistic regression analysis, spinal canal compromise (odd ratio = 1.316) and kyphotic angle (odd ratio = 1.416) were associated with nonoperative treatment failure in patients with TLICS 4 fracture. Other factors, including age, sex, BMI, initial VAS score, and loss of vertebral body height, were not significantly associated with nonoperative treatment failure in these patients. Spinal canal compromise and kyphotic angle were associated with nonoperative treatment failure in patients with TLICS 4 fracture. Therefore, we recommend the surgeon observe spinal canal compromise and kyphotic angle more carefully when deciding on the treatment of patients with TLICS 4 fracture.

Damage to the thoracolumbar spine can confer significant morbidity and mortality. The Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) is used to categorize injuries and determine patients at risk of spinal instability for whom surgical intervention is warranted. However, calculating this score can constitute a bottleneck in triaging and treating patients, as it relies on multiple imaging studies and a neurological examination. Therefore, the authors sought to develop and validate a deep learning model that can automatically categorize vertebral morphology and determine posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) integrity, two critical features of TLICS, using only CT scans. All patients who underwent neurosurgical consultation for traumatic spine injury or degenerative pathology resulting in spine injury at a single tertiary center from January 2018 to December 2019 were retrospectively evaluated for inclusion. The morphology of injury and integrity of the PLC were categorized on CT scans. A state-of-the-art object detection region-based convolutional neural network (R-CNN), Faster R-CNN, was leveraged to predict both vertebral locations and the corresponding TLICS. The network was trained with patient CT scans, manually labeled vertebral bounding boxes, TLICS morphology, and PLC annotations, thus allowing the model to output the location of vertebrae, categorize their morphology, and determine the status of PLC integrity. A total of 111 patients were included (mean ± SD age 62 ± 20 years) with a total of 129 separate injury classifications. Vertebral localization and PLC integrity classification achieved Dice scores of 0.92 and 0.88, respectively. Binary classification between noninjured and injured morphological scores demonstrated 95.1% accuracy. TLICS morphology accuracy, the true positive rate, and positive injury mismatch classification rate were 86.3%, 76.2%, and 22.7%, respectively. Classification accuracy between no injury and suspected PLC injury was 86.8%, while true positive, false negative, and false positive rates were 90.0%, 10.0%, and 21.8%, respectively. In this study, the authors demonstrate a novel deep learning method to automatically predict injury morphology and PLC disruption with high accuracy. This model may streamline and improve diagnostic decision support for patients with thoracolumbar spinal trauma.