Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Research Articles

Pediatric Cervical Spine Trauma: A Narrative Review.

Narrative review. To provide an updated overview of pediatric cervical spine trauma. Pediatric cervical spine trauma can cause debilitating morbidity and mortality and neurological impairment. The unique anatomic features of the developing cervical spine can predispose children to injuries. We reviewed the pediatric cervical spine trauma literature in PubMed and EMBASE. Pediatric cervical spine injury occurs in 1%-2% of pediatric trauma. The most frequent cause is motor vehicle collisions, with sports-related injuries being more common in older children. Larger head-to-body ratios and tissue elasticity can predispose young children to a greater risk of injury higher in the craniocervical junction and cervical spine. Standardized protocols and classification systems, such as the Pediatric Cervical Spine Clearance Working Group protocol and the AO Spine Injury and Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classifications, are valuable in triage as well as for assessing the need for operative versus nonoperative management. In general, operative approaches and principles are similar to those in adults, with modern instrumentation and fusion techniques achieving high rates of successful arthrodesis. Effective management and treatment of pediatric cervical spine injuries depends on early and accurate diagnosis, a thorough understanding of pediatric spinal anatomy, and a versatile surgical armamentarium.

Traumatic Cervical Facet Fractures and Dislocations.

Cervical facet injuries, though less common than other spinal injuries, represent a subset of subaxial cervical spine injuries and can present significant challenges in terms of diagnosis, management, and outcomes. A major concern with cervical facet fracture is identifying instability patterns that may necessitate surgical stabilization. Particularly in cases of cervical facet fracture dislocations, there remains controversy regarding requirements for closed reduction, timing, surgical approach, need for preoperative MRI, and method of fixation. This review article aims to provide a thorough understanding of the etiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic techniques, treatment options, and prognostic factors associated with cervical facet fractures.

Surgery for subaxial cervical spine injuries: which is better: anterior, posterior, or anterior-posterior combined approach?: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Both anterior and posterior approaches have shown insignificant differences in good clinical outcomes with one over another advantages and disadvantages. This review aimed to provide evidence for the best management of subaxial cervical spine injuries and discuss the clinical outcomes and complications. Clinical studies of anterior versus posterior and anterior versus anterior-posterior (combined) approaches to subaxial cervical spine injury were searched electronically from PubMed, Medline, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and other Internet databases. Clinical improvement, complication rates, and mortality rates showed no significant differences with an odds ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.49; p=0.61) for the anterior versus posterior approach and an odds ratio of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.35-3.18; p=0.93) for the anterior versus the combined approach. Surgical duration and blood loss were significantly different between the anterior and posterior groups with a mean difference of -42.84 (95% CI, -64.39 to 21.29; p<0.0001); -212.91 (95% CI, -417.60 to 8.22; p=0.04), respectively, whereas the length of hospitalization did not (p=0.16). No difference was found between the groups when compared by clinical improvement and complication rate. Meanwhile, the anterior approach was superior to the posterior approach in terms of surgical duration, blood loss, and hospitalization length.

Safety of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) for the treatment of subaxial cervical spine injuries, a single center comparative matched analysis

IntroductionAnterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF) are both common surgical procedures in the management of pathologies of the subaxial cervical spine. While recent reviews have demonstrated ACCF to provide better decompression results compared to ACDF, the procedure has been associated with increased surgical risks. Nonetheless, the use of ACCF in a traumatic context has been poorly described. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of ACCF as compared to the more commonly performed ACDF.MethodsAll patients undergoing ACCF or ACDF for subaxial cervical spine injuries spanning over 2 disc-spaces and 3 vertebral-levels, between 2006 and 2018, at the study center, were eligible for inclusion. Patients were matched based on age and preoperative ASIA score.ResultsAfter matching, 60 patients were included in the matched analysis, where 30 underwent ACDF and ACCF, respectively. Vertebral body injury was significantly more common in the ACCF group (p = 0.002), while traumatic disc rupture was more frequent in the ACDF group (p = 0.032). There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of surgical complications, including implant failure, wound infection, dysphagia, CSF leakage between the groups (p ≥ 0.05). The rates of revision surgeries (p > 0.999), mortality (p = 0.222), and long-term ASIA scores (p = 0.081) were also similar.ConclusionResults of both unmatched and matched analyses indicate that ACCF has comparable outcomes and no additional risks compared to ACDF. It is thus a safe approach and should be considered for patients with extensive anterior column injury.

Validation of the Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification score in children: a single-institution experience at a level 1 pediatric trauma center.

The Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification (SLIC) score has not been previously validated for a pediatric population. The authors compared the SLIC treatment recommendations for pediatric subaxial cervical spine trauma with real-world pediatric spine surgery practice. A retrospective cohort study at a pediatric level 1 trauma center was conducted in patients < 18 years of age evaluated for trauma from 2012 to 2021. An SLIC score was calculated for each patient, and the subsequent recommendations were compared with actual treatment delivered. Percentage misclassification, sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) were calculated. Two hundred forty-three pediatric patients with trauma were included. Twenty-five patients (10.3%) underwent surgery and 218 were managed conservatively. The median SLIC score was 2 (interquartile range = 2). Sixteen patients (6.6%) had an SLIC score of 4, for which either conservative or surgical treatment is recommended; 27 children had an SLIC score ≥ 5, indicating a recommendation for surgical treatment; and 200 children had an SLIC score ≤ 3, indicating a recommendation for conservative treatment. Of the 243 patients, 227 received treatment consistent with SLIC score recommendations (p < 0.001). SLIC sensitivity in determining surgically treated patients was 79.2% and the specificity for accurately determining who underwent conservative treatment was 96.1%. The PPV was 70.3% and the NPV was 97.5%. There was a 5.7% misclassification rate (n = 13) using SLIC. Among patients for whom surgical treatment would be recommended by the SLIC, 29.6% (n = 8) did not undergo surgery; similarly, 2.5% (n = 5) of patients for whom conservative management would be recommended by the SLIC had surgery. The ROC curve for determining treatment received demonstrated excellent discriminative ability, with an AUC of 0.96 (OR 3.12, p < 0.001). Sensitivity decreased when the cohort was split by age (< 10 and ≥ 10 years old) to 0.5 and 0.82, respectively; specificity remained high at 0.98 and 0.94. The SLIC scoring system recommended similar treatment when compared with the actual treatment delivered for traumatic subaxial cervical spine injuries in children, with a low misclassification rate and a specificity of 96%. These findings demonstrate that the SLIC can be useful in guiding treatment for pediatric patients with subaxial cervical spine injuries. Further investigation into the score in young children (< 10 years) using a multicenter cohort is warranted.

A perioperative predictive model of early mortality in acute cervical spinal cord injury: A prospective cohort study

BackgroundTraumatic cervical spine injury is common among spinal cord injury which requires an intensive, multidisciplinary approach which can affect the immediate postoperative hospital survival rate. By identifying the risk factors leading to early mortality in cervical spine trauma patients, the prognosis of patients with TCSCI can be better predicted. ObjectiveThe study aims to analyze the variables influencing in-hospital mortality in cervical spine trauma patients treated at a Level I trauma Center. MethodsProspective study was conducted on subaxial cervical spine injuries from July 2019 to March 2022. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A, with in-hospital mortality, and Group B, who got discharged from hospital, and mortality predictors were reviewed and analyzed for as potential risk factors for in-hospital mortality. ResultsOut of 105 patients, 83.8 % were male with mean age of 40.43 ± 12.62 years. On univariate analysis, AIS (p-value: <0.01), ICU stay (p-value: <0.01), level of injury (p-value: <0.01), and MRI parameters like the extent of Parenchymal damage (p-value: <0.01), MSCC (p-value: <0.01), and MCC (p-value: <0.01) were potential risk factors for in-hospital mortality. On multivariate regression analysis AIS at presentation (p-value: 0.02) was the only significant independent parameter for in-hospital mortality. ConclusionsAIS grading at presentation, duration of ICU stay, level of injury, rate of tracheostomy, and MRI parameters like the extent of parenchymal damage, MCC, and MSCC influence and predicts in-hospital mortality, whereas AIS is the only independent risk factor.

Long-term outcomes after surgery for subaxial cervical spine injuries in octogenarians, a matched population-based cohort study

PurposeWe aimed to investigate surgical outcomes in octogenarians with subaxial cervical spine injuries and determine the predictors of complications and mortality.MethodsEligible for inclusion were all patients surgically treated between 2006 and 2018, with either anterior or posterior fixation for subaxial spine injuries. A cohort of octogenarians was identified and matched 1:1 to a corresponding cohort of younger adults. Primary outcomes were perioperative complications and mortality.ResultsFifty-four patients were included in each of the octogenarian and younger groups (median age: 84.0 vs. 38.5). While the risks for surgical complications, including dural tears and wound infections, were similar between groups, the risks of postoperative medical complications, including respiratory or urinary tract infections, were significantly higher among the elderly (p < 0.05). Additionally, there were no differences in operative time (p = 0.625) or estimated blood loss (p = 0.403) between groups. The 30 and 90-day mortality rates were significantly higher among the elderly (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001). These differences were due to comorbidities in the octogenarian cohort as they were revoked when propensity score matching was performed to account for the differences in American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) grade. Multivariable logistic regression revealed age and ASA score to be independent predictors of complications and the 90-day mortality, respectively.ConclusionsOctogenarians with comorbidities were more susceptible to postoperative complications, explaining the increased short-term mortality in this group. However, octogenarians without comorbidities had similar outcomes compared to the younger patients, indicating that overall health, including comorbidities, rather than chronological age should be considered in surgical decision-making.

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.

Safety of tranexamic acid in surgically treated isolated spine trauma.

Tranexamic acid (TXA), a synthetic antifibrinolytic drug, effectively reduces blood loss by inhibiting plasmin-induced fibrin breakdown. This is the first study in the United Kingdom to investigate the effectiveness of TXA in the surgical management of isolated spine trauma. To assess the safety of TXA in isolated spine trauma. The primary and secondary outcomes are to assess the rate of thromboembolic events and to evaluate blood loss and the incidence of blood transfusion, respectively. This prospective observational study included patients aged ≥ 17 years with isolated spine trauma requiring surgical intervention over a 6-month period at two major trauma centers in the United Kingdom. We identified 67 patients: 26 (39%) and 41 (61%) received and did not receive TXA, respectively. Both groups were matched in terms of age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, and mechanism of injury. A higher proportion of patients who received TXA had a subaxial cervical spine injury classification or thoracolumbar injury classification score > 4 (74% vs 56%). All patients in the TXA group underwent an open approach with a mean of 5 spinal levels involved and an average operative time of 203 min, compared with 24 patients (58%) in the non-TXA group who underwent an open approach with an average of 3 spinal levels involved and a mean operative time of 159 min. Among patients who received TXA, blood loss was < 150 and 150-300 mL in 8 (31%) and 15 (58%) patients, respectively. There were no cases of thromboembolic events in any patient who received TXA. Our study demonstrated that TXA is safe for isolated spine trauma. It is challenging to determine whether TXA effectively reduces blood loss because most surgeons prefer TXA for open or multilevel cases. Further, larger studies are necessary to explore the rate, dosage, and mode of administration of TXA.

Outcome and complications of operatively treated subaxial cervical spine injuries: A population-based retrospective cohort study

ObjectiveThe aim was to study the outcome and complications of operative treatment for subaxial cervical spine injuries with respect to injury morphology and surgical strategy. MethodsA population-based cohort of 271 consecutive patients treated at Kuopio University Hospital from 2003 to 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. ResultsThe mean age was 52.4 (range 12–90) years and 78.6% were male. The AOSpine morphological classification was C in 56.5%, B in 24.7% and A in 17.0% of cases. The surgical approach was anterior in 70.8%, posterior in 20.3% and combined in 8.9% of patients. Fixation alignment was maintained in 96.9% of patients. Instrumentation failures were observed only in patients operated anteriorly but no statistical difference was found between the surgical approaches. The American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) grade improved in 22.1% of patients. Patients with preoperative AIS grade C had significant potential for neurological improvement (OR 10.44; 95% CI 1.77–61.56; p = 0.010). Postoperative, mostly mild, complications manifested in 22.5% of patients. The posterior approach was associated with fewer postoperative complications (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06–0.51; p = 0.001). Preoperative AIS grade A was a significant predisposing factor for complications (OR = 4.90; 95% CI = 1.49–16.10; p = 0.009). The perioperative (90-day) mortality rate was 3.3%. The mean follow-up period was 64.7 ± 25.9 (radiological)/136.7 ± 174.8 (clinical) days. ConclusionsOperative treatment is safe and effective but the surgical approach should be patient- and injury-specific. The prognosis for neurological recovery from spinal cord injury is superior in patients with partially preserved motor function.

The Effect of Concomitant Spinal Cord Injury on Postoperative Health-related Quality of Life After Traumatic Subaxial Cervical Spine Injuries: A Nationwide Registry Study

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of spinal cord injury (SCI) on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients surgically treated for traumatic subaxial cervical spine injuries and investigate the agreement between objective neurologic outcomes and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in that context. Study DesignObservational study on prospectively collected multi-institutional registry data. SettingSweden. ParticipantsPatients with traumatic subaxial spine injuries identified in the Swedish Spine Registry (Swespine) between 2006 and 2016. InterventionsAnterior, posterior, or anteroposterior cervical fixation surgery. Main OutcomesPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) consisting of EQ-5D-3Lindex and Neck Disability Index (NDI). ResultsAmong the 418 identified patients, 93 (22%) had a concomitant SCI. In this group, 30 (32%) had a complete SCI (Frankel A), and the remainder had incomplete SCIs (17%) Frankel B; 25 (27%) Frankel C; 22 (24%) Frankel D. PROMs significantly correlated with the Frankel grade (P<.001). However, post hoc analysis revealed that the differences between adjacent Frankel grades failed to reach both statistical and clinical significance. On univariable linear regression, the Frankel grade was a significant predictor of a specific index derived from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire (EQ-5D-3Lindex) at 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively as well as the NDI at 1 and 2 years postoperatively (P<.001). Changes of PROMs over time from 1, to 2, and 5 years postoperatively did not reach statistical significance, regardless of the presence and degree of SCI (P>.05). ConclusionOverall, the Frankel grade significantly correlated with the EQ-5D-3Lindex and NDI and was a significant predictor of PROMs at 1, 2, and 5 years. PROMs were stable beyond 1 year postoperatively regardless of the severity of the SCI.

Adverse events after surgery for injuries to the subaxial cervical spine: analysis of incidence and risk factors

PurposeTo determine the incidence of severe surgical adverse events (sSAE) after surgery of patients with subaxial cervical spine injury (sCS-Fx) and to identify patient, treatment, and injury-related risk factors.MethodsRetrospective analysis of clinical and radiological data of sCS-Fx patients treated surgically between 2010 and 2020 at a single national trauma center. Baseline characteristics of demographic data, preexisting conditions, treatment, and injury morphology were extracted. Incidences of sSAEs within 60 days after surgery were analyzed. Univariate analysis and binary logistic regression for the occurrence of one or more sSAEs were performed to identify risk factors. P-values < .05 were considered statistically significant.ResultsTwo hundred and ninety-two patients were included. At least one sSAE occurred in 49 patients (16.8%). Most frequent were sSAEs of the surgical site (wound healing disorder, infection, etc.) affecting 29 patients (9.9%). Independent potential risk factors in logistic regression were higher age (OR 1.02 [1.003–1.04], p = .022), the presence of one or more modifiers in the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification (OR 2.02 [1.03–3.96], p = .041), and potentially unstable or unstable facet injury (OR 2.49 [1.24–4.99], p = .010). Other suspected risk factors were not statistically significant, among these Injury Severity Score, the need for surgery for concomitant injuries, the primary injury type according to AO Spine, and preexisting medical conditions.ConclusionsSAE rates after treatment of sCS-Fx are high. The identified risk factors are not perioperatively modifiable, but their knowledge should guide intra and postoperative care and surgical technique.

Is it true that treatment in patients with Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System (SLICS) 4 is the surgeon's choice?

The Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System (SLICS) is a commonly used algorithm for diagnosing and managing subaxial cervical spine trauma. A SLIC score 4 suggests either surgery or non-surgically treatment depending on the surgeon's experience and patient's conditions. Prognosis and treatment results were analyzed in patients with SLIC score 4. The patients with SLIC score 4 were retrospectively reviewed from 2012 to 2019. Forty-one patients were included and divided into two groups: non-surgically treated and surgically treated. Demographic data and radiographs were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the difference between the two clinical groups. Twenty-two patients were non-surgically treated, and nineteen patients were surgically treated. There was no neurological deterioration in both groups. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the last follow-up AISA and Nurick grade (p> 0.05). There was no significant difference in the number of patients who showed improvement when comparing the initial and the last follow-up neurological status (p> 0.05). Regardless of the treatment method, the spinal cord injury patients with SLICS point 4 showed a relatively good prognosis. Patients with SLIC score 4 could be treated non-surgically or surgically based on the surgeon's experience and factors associated with the patient's acute health status and chronic comorbidities.

Management of sub-axial cervical spine injury with unilateral locked facet: an institutional experience

Management of sub-axial cervical spine injury with unilateral locked facet: an institutional experience

Treatment of Subaxial Cervical Spine Injuries at the University Hospital Center of Brazzaville, Congo

Background and Aim: Spinal cord trauma is a public health problem. The subaxial cervical spine is the most frequent seat of such injuries. This study aims to describe the treatment of subaxial cervical spine injuries at the University Hospital Center of Brazzaville, the Republic of Congo. Methods and Materials/Patients: This descriptive study was conducted for 7 years, from 2015 to 2021 in the Department of Multipurpose Surgery at the University Hospital Center of Brazzaville, Congo. The research included all patients hospitalized for subaxial cervical spine injury. The surgery was performed on 32 cases (53.3%). Results: A total of 90 cases with subaxial cervical spine injuries were reported with a frequency of 3.2% and included 60 cases. The median age was 37 years and the sex ratio (male/female) of 3.6. The trauma was because of a road accident in 68.3% of the cases. The affected vertebral level was C5-C6 in 18 cases (30%). It was a luxation in 30% and fracture luxation in 26.7% of the subjects. Surgery was indicated in 51 patients and 32(53.3%) were operated. The median time between admission and surgery was 288 hours. A total of 31(96.9%) cases were operated by the anterior approach alone. Anterior osteosynthesis was performed in all cases. Meanwhile, 18(56.3%) cases had a favorable evolution, 7(21.9%) had a worsening of the deficit, 5(15.6%) experienced a postoperative infection, 5(15.6%) showed deep pressure ulcers, and 7(22%) cases died. In both univariate and multivariate analysis, an unfavorable American Spine Injury Association score (between A and B) was associated with the occurrence of complications with a significant statistical difference (P&lt;0.05). Conclusion: Therapeutic care is delayed due to insufficient financial means for patients who lack health insurance. The surgery consists of neural decompression, arthrodesis then osteosynthesis, particularly by an anterior approach.

143. Evolution of patient-reported outcome measures beyond one-years after fixation surgery for subaxial cervical spine injuries

143. Evolution of patient-reported outcome measures beyond one-years after fixation surgery for subaxial cervical spine injuries

Timing of Surgery and Pre-operative Physiological Parameters as Clinical Predictors of Surgical Outcomes in Traumatic Subaxial Cervical Spine Fractures and Dislocations.

Objective To evaluate the risk factors and outcomes in patients surgically treated for subaxial cervical spine injuries with respect of the timing of surgery and preoperative physiological parameters of the patient. Methods 26 patients with sub-axial cervical spine fractures and dislocations were enrolled. Demographic data of patients, appropriate radiological investigation, and physiological parameters like respiratory rate, blood pressure, heart rate, PaO2 and ASIA impairment scale were documented. They were divided pre-operatively into 2 groups. Group U with patients having abnormal physiological parameters and Group S including patients having physiological parameters within normal range. They were further subdivided into early and late groups according to the timing of surgery as U early , U late, S early and S late . All the patients were called for follow-up at 1, 6 and 12 months. Results 56 percent of patients in Group S had neurological improvement by one ASIA grade and a good outcome irrespective of the timing of surgery. Patients in Group U having unstable physiological parameters and undergoing early surgical intervention had poor outcomes. Conclusion This study concludes that early surgical intervention in physiologically unstable patients had a strong association as a risk factor in the final outcome of the patients in terms of mortality and morbidity. Also, no positive association of improvement in physiologically stable patients with respect to the timing of surgery could be established.

Teachability of lower cervical spine injury classifications

ObjectivesTo compare the teachability of the Allen–Ferguson, Harris, Argenson, AOSpine, Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification (SLIC), Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification (CSISS) and to identify the classification that a group of residents and junior neurosurgeons find easiest to learn. MethodsWe used data from 64 consecutive patients. Answers of nine residents and junior neurosurgeons and four experienced surgeons in two assessment procedures were used. Six raters (workshop group) participated in special seminars between assessments. Three other raters formed the control group. Experienced surgeon's answers were used for comparison. Teachability was measured as the median value of the difference (ΔK) in the interrater agreement on the same patients by the same pairs of subjects. ResultsMedian Δ K for the Allen–Ferguson, Harris, Argenson and AOSpine classifications were: (1) 0.01, 0.02, 0.29, and 0.39 for the workshop group; (2). 0.09, −0.03, 0.06 and 0.04 for the control group, respectively. Between numerical scales, median ΔK was higher for SLIC but did not exceed 0.16. Interrater consistency with expert's opinion was increased in the workshop group for Allen–Ferguson, Argenson and AOSpine and did not differ in either group for SLIC and CSISS. ConclusionThe AOSpine classification was the most teachable. Among numeric scales, SLIC demonstrated better results. The successful application of these classifications by residents and junior neurosurgeons was possible after a short educational course. The use of these scales in educational cycles at the stage of residency can significantly simplify the communication between specialists, especially at the stage of patient admission.

An international validation of the AO spine subaxial injury classification system

PurposeTo validate the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System with participants of various experience levels, subspecialties, and geographic regions.MethodsA live webinar was organized in 2020 for validation of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System. The validation consisted of 41 unique subaxial cervical spine injuries with associated computed tomography scans and key images. Intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System were calculated for injury morphology, injury subtype, and facet injury. The reliability and reproducibility of the classification system were categorized as slight (ƙ = 0–0.20), fair (ƙ = 0.21–0.40), moderate (ƙ = 0.41–0.60), substantial (ƙ = 0.61–0.80), or excellent (ƙ = > 0.80) as determined by the Landis and Koch classification.ResultsA total of 203 AO Spine members participated in the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System validation. The percent of participants accurately classifying each injury was over 90% for fracture morphology and fracture subtype on both assessments. The interobserver reliability for fracture morphology was excellent (ƙ = 0.87), while fracture subtype (ƙ = 0.80) and facet injury were substantial (ƙ = 0.74). The intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology and subtype were excellent (ƙ = 0.85, 0.88, respectively), while reproducibility for facet injuries was substantial (ƙ = 0.76).ConclusionThe AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System demonstrated excellent interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology, substantial reliability and reproducibility for facet injuries, and excellent reproducibility with substantial reliability for injury subtype.

The Role of Riluzole in Acute Traumatic Cervical Spinal Cord Injury with Incomplete Neurological Deficit: A Prospective, Randomised Controlled Study.

Riluzole, a benzothiazole sodium channel blocker is acknowledged as a neuroprotective agent in spinal cord injury (SCI). Most of this evidence is based on pre-clinical studies and its effectiveness in clinical setting is undetermined, heretofore. A prospective, randomised-controlled study was conducted between April 2019 and March 2020 at a tertiary-level centre. Patients aged 18-65years with sub-axial cervical spine injury, who presented within 72h of injury with incomplete neuro-deficit, were included. They were randomised into groups A (riluzole was administered) and B (no adjuvants). All patients were followed up at 6weeks/3/6/12months, and clinical [ASIA motor/sensory scores/grade, SCIM3, and NRS (neuropathic pain)] and radiological evaluation was performed. Twenty-three and 20 patients were included in groups A and B. Two in group A were females, while others were males (p = 0.49). Mean age in groups A and B was 47.7 ± 14.8 and 51.2 ± 14.1years (p = 0.44). Five patients died prior to 6th-week follow-up. Among the others, there was significant improvement in all neurological parameters in both groups (post-injury vs 1-year; motor score: p < 0.001, sensory score: p < 0.001, SCIM3: p < 0.001, NRS: p < 0.001). In both groups, initial significant improvement was noticed even at the 6th-week follow-up, which further continued until the end of 1year. There was no statistically significant difference between groups A and B with respect to these neurological parameters (motor: p = 0.15, sensory: p = 0.39, SCIM3: p = 0.68, NRS: p = 0.06). Administration of riluzole did not significantly improve neurological outcome/neuropathic pain in our cohort. Nevertheless, both our groups demonstrated an overallimprovement inneurological outcome at 1year, as compared with immediate post-injury status.