Spine-related disorders are a leading cause of global disability and are a burden on society and to public health. Currently, there is no comprehensive, evidence-based model of care for spine-related disorders, which includes back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, spinal diseases, and pathology, that could be applied in global health care settings. The purposes of this paper are to propose: (1) principles to transform the delivery of spine care; (2) an evidence-based model that could be applied globally; and (3) implementation suggestions.

Background: Several classification systems exist for sacral fractures; however, these systems are primarily descriptive, are not uniformly used, have not been validated, and have not been associated with a treatment algorithm or prognosis. The goal of the present study was to demonstrate the reliability of the AOSpine Sacral Classification System among a group of international spine and trauma surgeons. Methods: A total of 38 sacral fractures were reviewed independently by 18 surgeons selected from an expert panel of AOSpine and AOTrauma members. Each case was graded by each surgeon on 2 separate occasions, 4 weeks apart. Intrarater reproducibility and interrater agreement were analyzed with use of the kappa statistic (κ) for fracture severity (i.e., A, B, and C) and fracture subtype (e.g., A1, A2, and A3). Results: Seventeen reviewers were included in the final analysis, and a total of 1,292 assessments were performed (646 assessments performed twice). Overall intrarater reproducibility was excellent (κ = 0.83) for fracture severity and substantial (κ = 0.71) for all fracture subtypes. When comparing fracture severity, overall interrater agreement was substantial (κ = 0.75), with the highest agreement for type-A fractures (κ = 0.95) and the lowest for type-C fractures (κ = 0.70). Overall interrater agreement was moderate (κ = 0.58) when comparing fracture subtype, with the highest agreement seen for A2 subtypes (κ = 0.81) and the lowest for A1 subtypes (κ = 0.20). Conclusions: To our knowledge, the present study is the first to describe the reliability of the AOSpine Sacral Classification System among a worldwide group of expert spine and trauma surgeons, with substantial to excellent intrarater reproducibility and moderate to substantial interrater agreement for the majority of fracture subtypes. These results suggest that this classification system can be reliably applied to sacral injuries, providing an important step toward standardization of treatment.

Prior upper cervical spine injury classification systems have focused on injuries to the craniocervical junction (CCJ), atlas, and dens independently. However, no previous system has classified upper cervical spine injuries using a comprehensive system incorporating all injuries from the occiput to the C2-3 joint. To (1) determine the accuracy of experts at correctly classifying upper cervical spine injuries based on the recently proposed AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System (2) to determine their interobserver reliability and (3) identify the intraobserver reproducibility of the experts. International Multi-Center Survey. A survey of international spine surgeons on 29 unique upper cervical spine injuries. Classification accuracy, interobserver reliability, intraobserver reproducibility. Thirteen international AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma members participated in two live webinar-based classifications of 29 upper cervical spine injuries presented in random order, four weeks apart. Percent agreement with the gold-standard and kappa coefficients (ƙ) were calculated to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. Raters demonstrated 80.8% and 82.7% accuracy with identification of the injury classification (combined location and type) on the first and second assessment, respectively. Injury classification intraobserver reproducibility was excellent (mean, [range] ƙ=0.82 [0.58-1.00]). Excellent interobserver reliability was found for injury location (ƙ = 0.922 and ƙ=0.912) on both assessments, while injury type was substantial (ƙ=0.689 and 0.699) on both assessments. This correlated to a substantial overall interobserver reliability (ƙ=0.729 and 0.732). Early phase validation demonstrated classification of upper cervical spine injuries using the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System to be accurate, reliable, and reproducible. Greater than 80% accuracy was detected for injury classification. The intraobserver reproducibility was excellent, while the interobserver reliability was substantial.

Study Design: Prospective Observational Study. Objective: To determine the alignment of the AO Spine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification system and treatment algorithm with contemporary surgical decision making. Methods: 183 cases of thoracolumbar burst fractures were reviewed by 22 AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma experts. These experienced clinicians classified the fracture morphology, integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex and degree of comminution. Management recommendations were collected. Results: There was a statistically significant stepwise increase in rates of operative management with escalating category of injury ( P < .001). An excellent correlation existed between recommended expert management and the actual treatment of each injury category: A0/A1/A2 (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.70-1.69, P = .71), A3/4 (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.98-2.66, P = .58) and B1/B2/C (1.00, 95% CI 0.87-1.14, P = .99). Thoracolumbar A4 fractures were more likely to be surgically stabilized than A3 fractures (68.2% vs 30.9%, P < .001). A modifier indicating indeterminate ligamentous injury increased the rate of operative management when comparing type B and C injuries to type A3/A4 injuries (OR 39.19, 95% CI 20.84-73.69, P < .01 vs OR 27.72, 95% CI 14.68-52.33, P < .01). Conclusions: The AO Spine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification system introduces fracture morphology in a rational and hierarchical manner of escalating severity. Thoracolumbar A4 complete burst fractures were more likely to be operatively managed than A3 fractures. Flexion-distraction type B injuries and translational type C injuries were much more likely to have surgery recommended than type A fractures regardless of the M1 modifier. A suspected posterior ligamentous injury increased the likelihood of surgeons favoring surgical stabilization.

The purpose of this report is to describe the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) contributors, disclosures, and methods for reporting transparency on the development of the recommendations.