Spinal cord · 2014
Do we have an ideal classification system for thoracolumbar and subaxial cervical spine injuries: what is the expert's perspective?
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Chhabra H S, Kaul R, Kanagaraju V
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Online questionnaire survey.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain the opinion of experts on whether the currently available classification systems for thoracolumbar and subaxial cervical spine injuries meet their expectations with regard to the desired objectives of a good classification system and practical implementability.
METHODS: An online survey was conducted during August-September 2013 using a specially designed questionnaire. Members of Spine Trauma Study Group of International Spinal Cord Society and other spinal injury experts were approached, and responses were analyzed.
RESULTS: Forty-two spine experts responded. Majority (87.50%, n=35) were involved with education and research. For subaxial cervical spine injuries, Allen Ferguson classification was more commonly used (37.50%, n=15) and thought to be practically implementable in day-to-day practice (30.77%). For thoracolumbar injuries, while Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) was more commonly used (47.50%, n=19), the response of experts for practical implementability in day-to-day practice was more evenly distributed among TLICS, AO (Association for Osteosynthesis) and Dennis classifications (30.77, 23.08 and 25.64%, respectively). Experts felt that the classification systems did not serve all the desired objectives. The reliability for residents was especially a concern.
CONCLUSION: We may still be far from an ideal classification system. Many experts continue to prefer or would consider shifting back to traditional and simpler systems. There is a need for developing classification systems that would be better implementable practically in day-to-day clinical practice, better guide treatment, be more reliable, incorporate other modifiers influencing treatment and be more comprehensive in that order of priority.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain the opinion of experts on whether the currently available classification systems for thoracolumbar and subaxial cervical spine injuries meet their expectations with regard to the desired objectives of a good classification system and practical implementability.
METHODS: An online survey was conducted during August-September 2013 using a specially designed questionnaire. Members of Spine Trauma Study Group of International Spinal Cord Society and other spinal injury experts were approached, and responses were analyzed.
RESULTS: Forty-two spine experts responded. Majority (87.50%, n=35) were involved with education and research. For subaxial cervical spine injuries, Allen Ferguson classification was more commonly used (37.50%, n=15) and thought to be practically implementable in day-to-day practice (30.77%). For thoracolumbar injuries, while Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) was more commonly used (47.50%, n=19), the response of experts for practical implementability in day-to-day practice was more evenly distributed among TLICS, AO (Association for Osteosynthesis) and Dennis classifications (30.77, 23.08 and 25.64%, respectively). Experts felt that the classification systems did not serve all the desired objectives. The reliability for residents was especially a concern.
CONCLUSION: We may still be far from an ideal classification system. Many experts continue to prefer or would consider shifting back to traditional and simpler systems. There is a need for developing classification systems that would be better implementable practically in day-to-day clinical practice, better guide treatment, be more reliable, incorporate other modifiers influencing treatment and be more comprehensive in that order of priority.