Skip to main content

Reliability assessment of AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system and Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) for thoracolumbar spine injuries: results of a multicentre study

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this multicentre study was to determine whether the recently introduced AOSpine Classification and Injury Severity System has better interrater and intrarater reliability than the already existing Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) for thoracolumbar spine injuries.

Methods

Clinical and radiological data of 50 consecutive patients admitted at a single centre with a diagnosis of an acute traumatic thoracolumbar spine injury were distributed to eleven attending spine surgeons from six different institutions in the form of PowerPoint presentation, who classified them according to both classifications. After time span of 6 weeks, cases were randomly rearranged and sent again to same surgeons for re-classification. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability for each component of TLICS and new AOSpine classification were evaluated using Fleiss Kappa coefficient (k value) and Spearman rank order correlation.

Results

Moderate interrater and intrarater reliability was seen for grading fracture type and integrity of posterior ligamentous complex (Fracture type: k = 0.43 ± 0.01 and 0.59 ± 0.16, respectively, PLC: k = 0.47 ± 0.01 and 0.55 ± 0.15, respectively), and fair to moderate reliability (k = 0.29 ± 0.01 interobserver and 0.44+/0.10 intraobserver, respectively) for total score according to TLICS. Moderate interrater (k = 0.59 ± 0.01) and substantial intrarater reliability (k = 0.68 ± 0.13) was seen for grading fracture type regardless of subtype according to AOSpine classification. Near perfect interrater and intrarater agreement was seen concerning neurological status for both the classification systems.

Conclusions

Recently proposed AOSpine classification has better reliability for identifying fracture morphology than the existing TLICS. Additional studies are clearly necessary concerning the application of these classification systems across multiple physicians at different level of training and trauma centers to evaluate not only their reliability and reproducibility, but also the other attributes, especially the clinical significance of a good classification system.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Middendorp JJV, Audige L, Hanson B et al (2010) What should an ideal spinal injury classification system consist of? A methodological review and conceptual proposal for future classifications. Eur Spine J 19:1238–1249

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Mirza SK, Mirza AJ, Chapman JR et al (2002) Classifications of thoracic and lumbar fractures: rationale and supporting data. J Am AcadOrthop Surg 10:364–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bohler L (1930) Die techniek de knochenbruchbehandlungimgrieden und imkriege. Veralag von Wilhelm Maudrich. (in German)

  4. Patel AA, Vaccaro AR (2010) Thoracolumbar spine trauma classification. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18:63–71

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bono CM, Vaccaro AR, Hurlbert RJ et al (2006) Validating a newly proposed classification system for thoracolumbar spine trauma: looking to the future of the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score. J Orthop Trauma 20:567–572

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Denis F (1983) The three column spine and its significance in the classification of acute thoracolumbar spinal injuries. Spine 8:817–831

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Agus H, Kayali C, Arslantas M (2004) Non-operative treatment of burst type thoracolumbar vertebral fractures: clinical and radiological results of 29 patients. Eur Spine J 14:536–540

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wood K, Buttermann G, Mehbod A et al (2003) Operative compared with non-operative treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurological deficit: a prospective randomized study. JBJS Am 85:773–781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Magerl F, Aebi M, Gertzbein SD, Harms J et al (1994) A comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries. Eur Spine J 3:184–201

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sethi MK, Schoenfeld AJ, Bono CM et al (2009) The evolution of thoracolumbar injury classification systems. Spine J 9:780–788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vaccaro AR, Oner C, Kepler CK et al (2013) AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system: fracture description, neurological status and key modifiers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:2028–2037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vaccaro AR, Zeiller SC, Hulbert RJ et al (2005) The thoracolumbar injury severity score: a proposed treatment algorithm. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:209–215

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Harrop JS, Vaccaro AR, Hurlbert RJ et al (2006) Intrarater and interrater reliability and validity in the assessment of the mechanism of injury and integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex: a novel injury severity scoring system for thoracolumbar injuries. Invited submission from the joint section meeting on disorders of the spine and peripheral nerves, March 2005. J Neurosurg Spine 4:118–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vaccaro AR, Baron EM, Sanfilippo J et al (2006) Reliability of a novel classification system for thoracolumbar injuries: the thoracolumbar injury severity score. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 231:S62–S69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rampersaud YR, Fisher C, Wilsey J et al (2006) Agreement between orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons regarding a new algorithm for the treatment of thoracolumbar injuries. A multicenter reliability study. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:477–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vaccaro AR, Lehman RA Jr, Hurlbert RJ et al (2005) A new classification of thoracolumbar injuries: the importance of injury morphology, the integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex, and neurologic status. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2325–2333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Patel AA, Dailey A, Brodke DS et al (2009) Thoracolumbar spine trauma classification: the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score system and case examples. J Neurosurg Spine 10:201–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Moore TA, Bransford RJ, France JC et al (2014) Low lumbar fractures. Does Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score work? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E1021–E1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Joaquim AF, Bastos DCDA, Torres HHJ (2015) Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Injury Severity Score system: a literature review of its safety. Global Spine J. (Epub ahead of print)

  20. Urrutia J, Zamora T, Yurac R et al (2014) An independent interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility evaluation of the new AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:E54–E58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kepler CK, Vaccaro AR, Koerner JD, et al (2015) Reliability analysis of the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System by a worldwide group of naïve spinal surgeons. Eur Spine J. (Epub ahead of print)

  22. Kirshblum SC, Burns SP, Biering-Sorenson F et al (2011) International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (Revised 2011). J Spinal Cord Med 34:535–546

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Landis JR, Koch GC (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 36:207–216

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chhabra HS, Kaul R, Kanagaraju V (2015) Do we have an ideal classification system for thoracolumbar and subaxial cervical spine injuries: what is the expert’s perspective? Spinal Cord 53:42–48

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wood KB, Khanna G, Vaccaro AR et al (2005) Assessment of two thoracolumbar fracture classification systems as used by multiple surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1423–1429

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rihn JA, Yang N, Fischer C et al (2010) Using magnetic resonance imaging to accurately assess injury to the posterior ligamentous complex of the spine: a prospective comparison of the surgeon and radiologist. J Neurosurg Spine 12:391–396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Middendorp JJV, Patel AA, Schuetz, Joaquim AF (2013) The precision, accuracy and validity of detecting posterior complex injuries of the thoracic and lumbar spine: a critical appraisal of the literature. Eur Spin J 22:461–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dai LYMDP, Ding WGMDM, Wang XYMDP et al (2009) Assessment of ligamentous injury in patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures using MRI. J Trauma Injury Infect Crit Care 66:1610–1615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Vaccaro AR, Schroeder GD, Kepler CK, et al (2015) The surgical algorithm for the AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system. Eur Spin J. (Epub ahead of print)

  30. Whang PG, Vaccaro AR, Poelstra KA et al (2007) The influence of fracture mechanism and morphology on the reliability and validity of two novel Thoracolumbar Injury Classification Systems. Spine. 32:791–795

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Koh YD, Kim DJ, Koh YW (2010) Reliability and validity of Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS). Asian Spine J 4(2):109–117

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim WC, Lee KY, Kang JH et al (2012) Comparison of TLICS and McAfee classification in thoracolumbar injuries. J Korean Soc Spine Surg 19:8–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Blauth M, Bastian L, Knop C et al (1999) Inter-observer reliability in the classification of thoracolumbar spinal injuries. Orthopade 28:662–681 (in German)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Oner FC, Ramos LM, Simmermacher RK et al (2002) Classification of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: problems of reproducibility. a study of 53 patients using CT and MRI. Eur Spine J 11:235–245

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Kriek JJ, Govender S (2006) AO-classification of thoracic and lumbar fractures—reproducibility utilizing radiographs and clinical information. Eur Spine J 15:1239–1246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sadiqi S, Oner FC, Dvorak MF et al (2015) The influence of spine surgeon’s experience on the classification and intraobserver reliability of the novel AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system—an international validity study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(23):E1250–E1256

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harvinder Singh Chhabra.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaul, R., Chhabra, H.S., Vaccaro, A.R. et al. Reliability assessment of AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system and Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) for thoracolumbar spine injuries: results of a multicentre study. Eur Spine J 26, 1470–1476 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4663-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4663-5

Keywords

  • AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System
  • TLICS
  • Reliability
  • Thoracolumbar spine injuries