• Spine · Mar 2017

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    An independent inter- and intra-observer agreement evaluation of the AOSpine subaxial cervical spine injury classification system.

    • Julio Urrutia, Tomas Zamora, Ratko Yurac, Mauricio Campos, Joaquin Palma, Sebastian Mobarec, and Carlos Prada.
    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
    • Spine. 2017 Mar 1; 42 (5): 298-303.

    Study DesignAn agreement study.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to perform an independent interobserver and intraobserver agreement assessment of the AOSpine subaxial cervical spine injury classification system.Summary Of Background DataThe AOSpine subaxial cervical spine injury classification system was recently described. It showed substantial inter- and intraobserver agreement in the study describing it; however, an independent evaluation has not been performed.MethodsAnteroposterior and lateral radiographs, computed tomography scans, and magnetic resonance imaging of 65 patients with acute traumatic subaxial cervical spine injuries were selected and classified using the morphologic grading of the subaxial cervical spine injury classification system by 6 evaluators (3 spine surgeons and 3 orthopedic surgery residents). After a 6-week interval, the 65 cases were presented to the same evaluators in a random sequence for repeat evaluation. The kappa coefficient (κ) was used to determine the inter- and intraobserver agreement.ResultsThe interobserver agreement was substantial when considering the fracture main types (A, B, C, or F), with κ = 0.61 (0.57-0.64), but moderate when considering the subtypes: κ = 0.57 (0.54-0.60). The intraobserver agreement was substantial considering the fracture types, with κ = 0.68 (0.62-0.74) and considering subtypes, κ = 0.62 (0.57-0.66). No significant differences were observed between spine surgeons and orthopedic residents in the overall inter- and intraobserver agreement, or in the inter- and intraobserver agreement of specific A, B, C, or F type of injuries.ConclusionThis classification allows adequate agreement among different observers and by the same observer on separate occasions. Future prospective studies should determine whether this classification allows surgeons to decide the best treatment for patients with subaxial cervical spine injuries.Level Of Evidence3.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.