Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score Research Articles

Fracture-dislocations of the subaxial cervical spine

Fracture-dislocations of the subaxial cervical spine are rare yet potentially devastating injuries often associated with high-energy trauma. These inherently unstable injuries frequently lead to neurologic compromise, necessitating urgent operative intervention. This review provides a comprehensive overview of subaxial cervical spine fracture-dislocations, addressing their epidemiology, anatomy, and classification systems. Classification schemes including Allen and Ferguson, Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score (CSISS), Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System (SLIC), and AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System are discussed. Prompt recognition and management of these injuries is critical in optimizing long-term functional and neurologic outcomes. Rates of neurologic injury can exceed 50 %, with distractive flexion injuries and bilateral facet injuries often presenting with higher ASIA grades and lower neurologic recovery potential. Minimizing time to reduction is the most important factor in optimizing neurologic outcomes in these injury patterns. We discuss both closed and open reduction methods, timing considerations, technical pearls, and potential complications associated with each strategy. We also discuss the diagnosis and management of concurrent acute disk herniations, the role of advanced imaging, and the debated utility of pre-reduction MRI. Many subaxial cervical fracture-dislocations necessitate surgical intervention, which can be approached from an anterior, posterior, or combined approach. Although no standard surgical treatment algorithm exists, we discuss surgical options and situations where a preferred approach may exist. Selection of the approach depends on injury characteristics and surgeon preference, and there are no clearly defined surgical recommendations based on injury pattern.

Risk Factors for Tracheostomy after Traumatic Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A 10-Year Study of 456 Patients.

ObjectivesTo explore the difference between tracheostomy and non‐tracheostomy and identify the risk factors associated with the need for tracheostomy after traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (TCSCI).MethodsThe demographic and injury characteristics of 456 TCSCI patients, treated in the Xinqiao Hospital from 2010 to 2019, were retrospective analyzed. Patients were divided into the tracheostomy group (n = 63) and the non‐tracheostomy group (n = 393). Variables included were age, gender,smoking history, mechanism of injury, concomitant injury, American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale, the neurological level of injury, Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score (CSISS), surgery, and length of stay in ICU and hospital. SPSS 25.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL) was used for statistical analysis and ROC curve drawing. Chi‐square analysis was applied to find out the difference of variables between the tracheostomy and non‐tracheostomy groups. Univariate logistic regression analysis (ULRA) and multiple logistic regression analysis (MLRA) were used to identify risk factors for tracheostomy. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the performance of these risk factors.ResultsOf 456 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 63 (13.8%) underwent tracheostomy. There were differences in age (χ2 = 6.615, P = 0.032), mechanism of injury (χ2 = 9.87, P = 0.036), concomitant injury (χ2 = 6.131, P = 0.013),ASIA Impairment Scale (χ2 = 123.08, P < 0.01), the neurological level of injury (χ2 = 34.74, P < 0.01), and CSISS (χ2 = 19.612, P < 0.01) between the tracheostomy and non‐tracheostomy groups. Smoking history, CSISS ≥ 7, AIS A and, NLI ≥ C5 were identified as potential risk factors for tracheostomy by ULRA. Smoking history (OR = 2.960, 95% CI: 1.524–5.750, P = 0.001), CSISS ≥ 7 (OR = 4.599, 95% CI: 2.328–9.085, P = 0.000), AIS A (OR = 14.213, 95% CI: 6.720–30.060, P = 0.000) and NLI ≥ C5 (OR = 8.312, 95% CI: 1.935–35.711, P = 0.004) as risk factors for tracheostomy were determined by MLRA. The AUC for the risk factors of tracheostomy after TCSCI was 0.858 (95% CI: 0.810–0.907).ConclusionsSmoking history, CSISS ≥ 7, AIS A and, NLI ≥ C5 were identified as risk factors needing of tracheostomy in patients with TCSCI. These risk factors may be important to assist the clinical decision of tracheostomy.

Оцінка рівня нестабільності ушкоджень, класифікованих за AOSpine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System

Актуальність. При визначенні спрямованості та обсягу хірургічного лікування у хворих із травматичним ушкодженням шийного відділу на субаксіальному рівні основними є такі критерії: характер і ступінь ушкодження остеолігаментозного апарату шийного відділу хребта, що визначає рівень нестабільності; ступінь компресії структур хребетного каналу; стан сагітального профілю. Метою цієї роботи є оцінка ступеня нестабільності різних типів ушкоджень шийного відділу хребта, класифікованих відповідно до AOSpine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System. Матеріали та методи. Проведено ретроспективний аналіз даних спондилограм, комп’ютерних і магнітно-резонансних томограм 168 пацієнтів із травматичним ушкодженням шийного відділу хребта на субаксіальному рівні, які перебували на стаціонарному лікуванні у відділенні патології спинного мозку ДУ «Інститут нейрохірургії ім. акад. А.П. Ромоданова НАМН України» в період з 2008 по 2018 р. Виконувалася кількісна оцінка ступеня нестабільності із застосуванням Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score і визначення типу ушкодження згідно з AOSpine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System. Результати. Виявлено, що медіана показника нестабільності прогресивно наростає зі збільшенням ступеня тяжкості типу ушкодження. Найбільш широкий діапазон значень показника рівня нестабільності відзначається при компресійному типі ушкоджень: від 6 балів (95% довірчий інтервал (ДІ) 4,76–6,84) при типі А1 до 11 балів (95% ДІ 9,48–11,81) при А4. Для типів А2 і А3 зареєстровано 7 балів (95% ДІ 6,68–7,53) і 8 балів (95% ДІ 7,97–9,01) відповідно. Флексійно-екстензійні ушкодження характеризуються меншим діапазоном значень. Медіана прогресивно зростає від типу В1 — 13 балів (95% ДІ 12,4–13,92) до B3 — 15,5 бала (95% ДІ 14,5–16,35). Показник для В2 займає проміжне значення і становить 15 (95% ДІ 13,59–15,52). Максимальні значення при згинально-розгинальних ушкодженнях — 18 балів, зареєстровані як при типі В2, так і В3. Тип С демонструє найбільший рівень нестабільності — 17 балів (95% ДІ 16,58–17,86) та досить широкий діапазон розрахованих значень — від 13 до 20 балів. Висновки. Загальною тенденцією є збільшення рівня нестабільності в низці підтипів від А1 до С, проте навіть ушкодження типу А1 за певних умов виявляються досить нестабільними і вимагають хірургічного втручання. На противагу класичним уявленням ушкодження типу А досить часто супроводжуються ураженням фасеткових суглобів, що також необхідно враховувати при визначенні індивідуальної тактики терапії постраждалих.

The classifications of subaxial cervical spine traumatic injuries. Part 3. The Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score (CSISS)

The classifications of subaxial cervical spine traumatic injuries. Part 3. The Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score (CSISS)

External Multicenter Study of Reliability and Reproducibility for Lower Cervical Spine Injuries Classification Systems-Part 2: An Analysis of the Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification and Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score Scale.

Study Design:A multicenter observational survey.Objective:To quantify and compare inter- and intraobserver reliability of the subaxial cervical spine injury classification (SLIC) and the cervical spine injury severity score (CSISS) in a multicentric survey of neurosurgeons with different experience levels.Methods:Data concerning 64 consecutive patients who had undergone cervical spine surgery between 2013 and 2017 was evaluated, and we surveyed 37 neurosurgeons from 7 different clinics. All raters were divided into 3 groups depending on their level of experience. Two assessment procedures were performed.Results:For the SLIC, we observed excellent agreement regarding management among experienced surgeons, whereas agreement among less experienced neurosurgeons was moderate and almost twice as unlikely. The sensitivity of SLIC relating to treatment tactics reached as high as 92.2%. For the CSISS, agreement regarding management ranged from medium to substantial, depending on a neurosurgeon’s experience. For less experienced neurosurgeons, the level of agreement concerning surgical management was the same as for the SLIC in not exceeding a moderate level. However, this scale had insufficient sensitivity (slightly exceeding 50%). The reproducibility of both scales was excellent among all raters regardless of their experience level.Conclusions:Our study demonstrated better management reliability, sensitivity, and reproducibility for the SLIC, which provided moderate interrater agreement with moderate to excellent intraclass correlation coefficient indicators for all raters. The CSISS demonstrated high reproducibility; however, large variability in answers prevented raters from reaching a moderate level of agreement. Magnetic resonance imaging integration may increase sensitivity of CSISS in relation to fracture management.

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

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.

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

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.

Diagnosis and treatment strategy of lower cervical spine injuries based on modified Moore classification

Objective To investigate the modification method of Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score System and discuss diagnosis and treatment strategy of lower cervical spine injuries. Methods Treatments of lower cervical spine injuries were selected according to the injury severity graded by the modified Moore' s classification system.Conservative therapy could be adopted for the patients with stability quantification rating ＜ 3 points or for the those with stability quantification rating =3 points but without spinal cord or nerve root compression.Surgical treatment was recommendable for the patients with stability quantification rating =3 points and with spinal cord or nerve root compression.Surgical therapy could be required for the patients with stability quantification rating ≥4 points and with risk of lower cervical instability.The higher the stability quantification score implied the stronger the surgical indications.Lower cervical spine injury combined with spine cord or nerve root compression had absolute surgical indications.At the same time,therapies were selected based on patients' other factors. Results Based on basic principles of the modified Moore' s classification system together with opinions of the patients and their relatives,14 patients were managed with surgical treatment and 16 with conservative treatment.Among the patients with complete spinal cord injury (Grade A),two patients treated surgically showed no obvious signs of spinal function recovery,but their nerve root irritation symptoms disappeared; the other one patient who needed surgery but received conservative treatment had no change of the spinal cord function and nerve root irritation.The patients with incomplete spinal cord injury (Grades B,C and D) treated surgically obtained certain degree of spine cord function recovery,with their American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) score raised by 0.5 grade on average.However,the patients who needed surgery but received conservative treatment gained average increase of ASIA score for 0.5 grade.Imaging examination showed that patients without combined spinal injuries obtained interbody fusion after surgery,with normal alignment and height of the cervical vertebra but without presence of vertebral shift or instability. Conclusions The modified Moore' s classification system takes patients' spiaal injury condition and other factors into consideration in selection of conservative or surgical treatment,which improves the Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score System to some extent and has prospect of clinical application. Key words: Spinal cord injuries; Cervical vertebrae; Research design; Clinical protocols

Cervical Spine Injury Recovery Prediction Scale: A Means of Predicting Neurological Recovery in Patients with Acute Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury

To develop a comprehensive Cervical Spine Injury Recovery Prediction Scale (CSIRPS) to predict outcomes for patients with acute subaxial cervical spine injury (CSI). 42 men and 18 women (mean age, 41 years) with acute subaxial (C3-C7) CSI and a neurological deficit were evaluated clinically and radiologically after crutch-field skeletal traction. The comprehensive CSIRPS comprised 5 predictor variables: American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) impairment scale, maximum cord compression, maximum canal compromise, signal intensity pattern in the cord, and Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score (CSISS). Point values of each predictor were weighted based on consensus and experience, and the total effect was computed using the CSIRPS. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted with the CSIRPS data to obtain the critical value that can predict walkers from non-walkers. The Chi squared value for CSIRPS was 55.771 and the contingency coefficient was 0.694 (p<0.0001), both of which were highest among each predictor's corresponding values. A ROC curve was plotted with the CSIRPS data. With 100% area under the ROC curve, the critical value of 50 was identified with a sensitivity and specificity of 100%. All the patients with CSIRPS above this level regained the useful functions on follow-up, whereas patients with lower scores did not. The CSIRPS is a practical and accurate means of predicting outcomes in patients with acute subaxial CSI.

Reliability of classification systems for subaxial cervical injuries

Study design: Interobserver and intraobserver reliabilityObjective: To measure and compare the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the cervical spine injury severity score (CSISS), the subaxial injury classification (SLIC) and severity scale, and the Allen-Ferguson system in patients with subaxial cervical spine injuries presenting to the emergency department.Methods: Five examiners independently reviewed c-spine x-rays (CT/MRI) of 50 consecutive patients with subaxial cervical-spine injuries. They classified each case using CSISS, SLIC, and the Allen-Ferguson system. Examiners also documented if they believed the case required surgical management. At least 6 weeks later, the above steps were repeated for ten randomly chosen cases.Results: The interobserver and intraobserver reliability for the total CSISS and total SLIC score are excellent. There is poor interobserver reliability and excellent intraobserver reliability when a total kappa score is calculated using all 21 groups for the Allen-Ferguson system. With respect to surgical management decisions, the interobserver agreement is moderate and the intraobserver agreement is excellent.Conclusions: There is no universally accepted classification scheme for subaxial cervical-spine injuries. A useful classification system must have excellent reliability to consistently and accurately describe injury patterns between different observers and allow for comparison across systems or cohorts. Both the CSISS and the SLIC and severity scale are promising classification systems with excellent interobserver and intraobserver reliability. Future studies will need to determine if their quantitative scores correlate with management and clinical outcomes.

Teachability and Reliability of a New Classification System for Lower Cervical Spinal Injuries

Reliability and validation study. The objective of this study is to evaluate a new lower cervical spine injury classification system and assess its reliability, teachability, and clinical applications. The recently proposed Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score (CSISS) morphologically describes lower cervical spine injuries and grades them on a score of 1 to 20 depending on the integrity of the 4 columns that make up the cervical spine. Early data suggests that this classification system is both reliable and reproducible. Reliability data from additional institutions and data exploring teachability of this classification system is not available. Fifteen subjects (12 residents and 3 attendings trained in the management of spinal trauma) reviewed radiographs and CT scans of 50 patients and scored them according to the CSISS. Six residents scored the patients 1 month before an instructional lecture given by the senior author and then again immediately following the lecture to assess teachability of the new classification system. All subjects then reviewed the films a final time 1 month later to assess both intraobserver and interobserver reliability. The patients' scores were also analyzed in conjunction with their clinical treatment. Interobserver reliability overall was excellent (0.975) with junior residents performing similarly to those with more extensive training. Intraobserver reliability was also excellent overall (0.983). Teachability scores improved in the ability to score all 4 columns. Furthermore, this classification system was a fair overall predictor of surgical candidates as a score of 7 predicted 19 out of 26 surgical patients (76% sensitivity, 100% specificity). The CSISS is a useful new adjunct in the treatment and classification of lower cervical spine injuries. The system is reliable, reproducible, and teachable. It is clinically useful for all levels of orthopedic training and experience.

Mid- to long-term outcome of instrumented anterior cervical fusion for subaxial injuries.

The management of patients with subaxial cervical injuries lacks consensus, particularly in regard to the decision which surgical approach or combination of approaches to use and which approach yields the best clinical outcome in the distinct injury. The trauma literature is replete with reports of surgical techniques, complications and gross outcome assessment in heterogeneous samples. However, data on functional and clinical outcome using validated outcome measures are scanty. Therefore, the authors performed a study on plated anterior cervical decompression and fusion for unstable subaxial injuries with focus on clinical outcome. For the purpose of a strongly homogenous subgroup of patients with subaxial injuries without spinal cord injuries, robust criteria were applied that were fulfilled by 28 patients out of an original series of 131 subaxial injuries. Twenty-six patients subjected to 1- and 2-level fusions without having spinal cord injury could be surveyed after a mean of 5.5 years (range 16-128 months). The cervical spine injury severity score averaged 9.6. Cross-sectional outcome assessment included validated outcome measures (Neck pain disability index, Cervical Spine Outcome Questionnaire, SF-36), the investigation of construct failure and successful surgical outcome were defined by strict criteria, the reconstruction and maintenance of local and total cervical lordosis, adjacent-segment degeneration and intervertebral motion, and the fusion-rate using an interobserver assessment. Self-rated clinical outcome was excellent or good in 81% of patients and moderate or poor in 19% that corresponded to the results of the validated outcome measures. Results of the NPDI averaged 12.4 +/- 12.7% (0-40). With the SF-36 mean physical and mental component summary scores were 47.0 +/- 9.8 (18.2-59.3) and 52.2 +/- 12.4 (14.6-75.3), respectively. Using merely non-constrained plates, construct failure was observed in 31% of cases and loss of local lordosis, expressed as a mean injury angle of 14 degrees, postoperative angle of -5.5 degrees and follow-up angle of -1 degree, was significant. However, total cervical lordosis was within the limits of normalcy (-24.3 degrees +/- 13.3) and fusion-rate was 88.5%. The progression of adjacent-level degeneration was shown to be significantly influenced by a decreased plate-to-disc-distance. Adjacent-level intervertebral motion was not altered due to the adjacent fusion, but reduced in the presence of advanced adjacent-level degeneration. Patients were more likely to maintain a high satisfaction level if they succeeded to maintain segmental lordosis (<0 degree), had a solid fusion, an increased plate-to-disc distance, and if they were judged to have a successful surgical outcome that included the absence of construct failure and reconstruction of lordosis within +/-1 SD of normalcy. Using validated outcome vehicles the interdependencies between radiographical, functional and clinical outcome parameters could be substantiated with statistically significant correlations. The use of validated outcome vehicles in a subgroup of patients with plated anterior cervical fusions for subaxial injuries is recommended. With future studies, it enables objective comparison of surgical techniques and related radiographical, functional and clinical outcome.

Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score

Systems for classifying cervical spine injury most commonly use mechanistic or morphologic terms and do not quantify the degree of stability. Along with neurologic function, stability is a major determinant of treatment and prognosis. The goal of our study was to investigate the reliability of a method of quantifying the stability of subaxial (C3-C7) cervical spine injuries. A quantitative system was developed in which an analog score of 0 to 5 points is assigned, on the basis of fracture displacement and severity of ligamentous injury, to each of four spinal columns (anterior, posterior, right pillar, and left pillar). The total possible score thus ranges from 0 to 20 points. Fifteen examiners assigned scores after reviewing the plain radiographs and computed tomography images of thirty-four consecutive patients with cervical spine injuries. The scores were then evaluated for interobserver and intraobserver reliability with use of intraclass correlation coefficients. The mean intraobserver and interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients for the fifteen reviewers were 0.977 and 0.883, respectively. Association between the scores and clinical data was also excellent, as all patients who had a score of > or =7 points had surgery. Similarly, eleven of the fourteen patients with a score of > or =7 points had a neurologic deficit compared with only three of the twenty with a score of <7 points. The Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score had excellent intraobserver and interobserver reliability. We believe that quantifying stability on the basis of fracture morphology will allow surgeons to better characterize these injuries and ultimately lead to the development of treatment algorithms that can be tested in clinical trials.

Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score

Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score

Classification of Lower Cervical Spine Injuries

Blinded assessment by multiple observers of consecutive case series. Measure the reliability of a new system of determining stability in subaxial cervical spine injuries. Classification is fundamental to allow communication, determine prognosis, and direct treatment. Current systems have many limitations, including difficultly of use, lack of proven reliability and validity, and no assessment of stability. A new system to assess instability is proposed. A literature review of the most commonly described classification systems is reported. The Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score was tested for reliability by 10 examiners who graded 35 consecutive cases of cervical trauma. Plain radiographs and CT were saved as read using Efilm Lite in random order. Each was scored and intraobserver and interobserver agreement was measured using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Intraobserver agreement was excellent with ICC ranging from 0.97 to 0.99. Interobserver agreement was also excellent with mean 0.80 ranging from 0.75 to 0.98. A new cervical spine classification system of injury is paramount to treatment and outcomes. A new system may increase reliability and therefore allow more accurate determination of stability and dictate treatment.