The SCBs following microfracture for OLT were not restored at midterm follow-up. There was a significant decrease of the overall SCBH score over time. Noticeably, subchondral cysts deteriorated over time consistently. In addition, the SCBH score at midterm follow-up was positively correlated with clinical outcomes. Lasting morphological changes in the SCB may be indicative of longer-term failure of the microfracture procedure.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (< 5 years, 5–10 years, 10–20 years, and > 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (< 5 years: 0.74 vs 5–10 years: 0.69 vs 10–20 years: 0.69 vs > 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (< 5 years: 0.67 vs 5–10 years: 0.62 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (< 5 years: 0.62 vs 5–10 years: 0.61 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system.

Background Multiple Hereditary Osteochondromas [MHO], previously known as multiple hereditary exostoses, is a rare disorder of bone growth, whereby osseous transformation of the cartilage caps within the diaphyses of long bones or flat bones within the skeleton occurs. A significant complication of MHO is the conversion of any present osteochondroma into a malignant chondrosarcoma. Chondrosarcomas are mesenchymal, non-meningothelial tumours and most commonly present with insidious pain, associated neurological deficit by means of impingement of underlying nerves. Case presentation We present a clinical case of a 29-year-old female medical student with a background history of multiple hereditary osteochondromas. A previously competitive cross-fitter, she developed the conversion of MHO into a malignant chondrosarcoma. Presenting to outpatient clinic in late 2017, this lady had a 2-year history of lower back pain and an associated palpable lump. An MRI of the thoracolumbar spine demonstrated a large mass arising from the posterior elements of T11 to L2. A biopsy at the time was found to be of benign pathology, most likely in keeping with this patient’s diagnosis of MHO. The patient returned for review in early 2018, where a repeat MRI showed extension of the previously described lesion into the spinal canal at the level of L1 vertebra. This was concerning that this previously identified osteochondroma lesion could be undergoing malignant transformation. The patient went on to have a series of complex spinal surgeries which we will discuss below.

Introduction Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) is the gold standard treatment for symptomatic cervical spondylosis refractory to analgesic medical management. Currently, there are numerous approaches and devices used; however, there is no single implant that is preferred for this procedure. The aim of this study is to evaluate the radiological outcomes of ACDF procedures performed in the regional spinal surgery centre in Northern Ireland. The results of this study will aid surgical decision-making, specifically with regard to the choice of implant. The implants that will be assessed in this study are the stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage (Cage) and the Zero-profile augmented screw implant (Z-P). Methods A total of 420 ACDF cases were reviewed retrospectively. Following exclusion and inclusion criteria, 233 cases were reviewed. In the Z-P group, there were 117 patients, with 116 in the Cage group. Radiographic assessment was carried out at the pre-operative stage, day one post-operation, and follow-up (> three months). Measured parameters included segmental disc height, segmental Cobb angle, and spondylolisthesis displacement distance. Results Patient characteristic features showed no significant difference between the two groups (p>0.05) and no significant difference in mean follow-up time (p=0.146). The Z-P implant was superior in increasing and maintaining disc height post-operatively (+0.4±0.94mm, 5.20±0.66mm) compared to the Cage (+0.1±1.00mm, 4.40±0.95mm) (p<0.001). Z-P was also more successful in restoring and maintaining cervical lordosis in comparison to the Cage group, as it had a significantly smaller kyphosis incidence (0.85% vs. 34.5%) at follow-up (p<0.001). Conclusions Results of this study show a more advantageous outcome in the Zero-profile group as it restores and maintains both disc height and cervical lordosis; it is also more successful in treating spondylolisthesis. This study advocates cautious endorsement of the use of the Zero-profile implant in ACDF procedures for symptomatic cervical disc disease.