Neurosurgery · 2024
Validation and Comparison of Common Thoracolumbar Injury Classification Treatment Algorithms and a Novel Modification.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Withrow Joseph, Trimble Duncan, Narro Analisa, Monterey Michael, Sheinberg Dallas, Dono Antonio, Haley Lauren, Cruz Marco Martinez, Zaragoza Jennifer, Li Wen, Quinn John
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The most common thoracolumbar trauma classification systems are the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) and the Thoracolumbar AO Spine Injury Score (TL AOSIS). Predictive accuracy of treatment recommendations is a historical limitation. Our objective was to validate and compare TLICS, TL AOSIS, and a modified TLICS (mTLICS) that awards 2 points for the presence of fractured vertebral body height loss >50% and/or spinal canal stenosis >50% at the fracture site.
METHODS: The medical records of adult patients with acute, traumatic thoracolumbar injuries at an urban, Level 1 trauma center were retrospectively reviewed. TLICS, mTLICS, and TL AOSIS scores were calculated for 476 patients using computed tomography, MRI, and the documented neurological examination. Treatment recommendations were compared with treatment received. Standard validity measures were calculated.
RESULTS: Treatment recommendations matched actual treatments in 95.6% (455/476) of patients for mTLICS, 91.3% (435/476) for TLICS, and 92.6% (441/476) for TL AOSIS. The differences between the accuracy of mTLICS and TLICS (95.6% vs 91.3%, P < .001) and between mTLICS and TL AOSIS (95.6% vs 91.3%, P = .003) were significant. The sensitivity of mTLICS was higher than that of TLICS (96.3% vs 81.3%, P < .001), and the sensitivity of TL AOSIS was higher than that of TLICS (92.5% vs 81.3%, P < .001). The specificity of mTLICS was equal to that of TLICS (95.3%) and higher than that of TL AOSIS (95.3% vs 92.7%, P = .02). The modifier led to substantial outperformance of mTLICS over TLICS due to 38 patients (20 of whom received surgery) moving from a TLICS score of <4 to a mTLICS score equal to 4.
CONCLUSION: All systems performed well. The mTLICS had improved sensitivity and accuracy compared with TLICS and higher accuracy and specificity than TL AOSIS. The sensitivity of TL AOSIS was higher than that of TLICS. Prospective, multi-institutional reliability and validity studies of this mTLICS are needed for adoption.
METHODS: The medical records of adult patients with acute, traumatic thoracolumbar injuries at an urban, Level 1 trauma center were retrospectively reviewed. TLICS, mTLICS, and TL AOSIS scores were calculated for 476 patients using computed tomography, MRI, and the documented neurological examination. Treatment recommendations were compared with treatment received. Standard validity measures were calculated.
RESULTS: Treatment recommendations matched actual treatments in 95.6% (455/476) of patients for mTLICS, 91.3% (435/476) for TLICS, and 92.6% (441/476) for TL AOSIS. The differences between the accuracy of mTLICS and TLICS (95.6% vs 91.3%, P < .001) and between mTLICS and TL AOSIS (95.6% vs 91.3%, P = .003) were significant. The sensitivity of mTLICS was higher than that of TLICS (96.3% vs 81.3%, P < .001), and the sensitivity of TL AOSIS was higher than that of TLICS (92.5% vs 81.3%, P < .001). The specificity of mTLICS was equal to that of TLICS (95.3%) and higher than that of TL AOSIS (95.3% vs 92.7%, P = .02). The modifier led to substantial outperformance of mTLICS over TLICS due to 38 patients (20 of whom received surgery) moving from a TLICS score of <4 to a mTLICS score equal to 4.
CONCLUSION: All systems performed well. The mTLICS had improved sensitivity and accuracy compared with TLICS and higher accuracy and specificity than TL AOSIS. The sensitivity of TL AOSIS was higher than that of TLICS. Prospective, multi-institutional reliability and validity studies of this mTLICS are needed for adoption.