No abstract

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.

Study Design: Multicenter observational survey study. Objectives: To quantify and compare the inter- and intraobserver reliability of Allen-Fergusson (A-F), Harris, Argenson, and AOSpine (AOS) classifications for cervical spine injuries, in a multicentric survey of neurosurgeons with different levels of experience. Methods: We used data of 64 consecutive patients. Totally, 37 surgeons (from 7 centers), were included in the study. The initial assessment was returned by 36 raters. The second assessment performed after 1.5 months included 24 raters. Results: We received 15 111 answers for 3840 evaluations. Raters reached a fair general agreement of the A-F scale, while the experienced group achieved κ = 0.39. While all groups showed moderate interrater reliability for primary assessment of Harris scale (κ = 0.44), the κ value for experts decreased from 0.58 to 0.49. The Argenson scale demonstrated moderate and substantial agreement among all raters (κ = 0.47 and κ = 0.55, respectively). The AOS scheme primary assessment general kappa value for all types of injuries and across all raters was 0.49, reaching substantial agreement among experts (κ = 0.62) with moderate agreement across beginner and intermediate groups (κ = 0.48 and κ = 0.44, respectively). The second assessment general agreement kappa value reached 0.56. Conclusions: We found the highest values of interobserver agreement and reproducibility among surgeons with different levels of experience with Argenson and AOSpine classifications. The AOSpine scale additionally incorporated more detailed description of compression injuries and facet-joint fractures. Agreement levels reached for Allen-Fergusson and Harris scales were fair and moderate, respectively, indicating difficulty of their application in clinical practice, especially by junior specialists.

Objective. To clarify a significance of the risk factors for damage to the dura mater (DM) in fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine.Material and Methods. The study is based on the analysis of examination data and surgical treatment results of 350 patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Fractures of the thoracic spine were observed in 124 patients, and those of the lumbar spine in 226. The study included 167 operated patients who underwent posterior decompression at the fracture level using laminectomy and transpedicular fixation of the injured spinal motion segment. There were two groups of patients: study group included 55 patients with DM rupture and control one – 112 patients without damage to the DM.Results. Damage to the DM was found in 32.9 % of patients, the rupture was localized on the posterior surface of the dural sac. In patients with rupture of the dura mater, ASIA type A and B neurological disorders were significantly more common (p = 0.00065). The DM damage occurs significantly more often in patients with  type C fracture according to the AOSpine classification, with multilevel spinal injuries and combined SCI (Injury Severity Score more than 27.58 ± 9.46 points). The most significant risk factors for the development of DM ruptures are narrowing of the spinal canal at the fracture level by more than 50 %, a fracture of the vertebral arch, an increase in the relative interpedicular distance of more than 20 %, and diastasis between the fragments of the arches by more than 2.5 mm.Conclusion. The damage to the dura mater is a common complication of vertebral fracture. The prediction of dura mater rupture will allow optimizing surgical approach and improving the treatment outcome.