Which is the Superior Thoracolumbar Injury Classification Tool? TLICS Versus AOSpine 2013: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Global Spine Journal Pub Date : 2024-12-25 DOI:10.1177/21925682241311303
Kristina T Pidd, David Sadauskas, Vanesa Tomatis, Ema J Knight
{"title":"Which is the Superior Thoracolumbar Injury Classification Tool? TLICS Versus AOSpine 2013: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Kristina T Pidd, David Sadauskas, Vanesa Tomatis, Ema J Knight","doi":"10.1177/21925682241311303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic Literature Review.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To address whether TLICS or AOSpine is best used in clinical practice through assessment of interobserver and intraobserver reliability, agreement, and imaging modality performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic literature review was reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Articles were included based on meeting eligibility criteria: studies evaluating TLICS, AOSpine, and/or TL AOSIS through reliability, agreement, or imaging modality performance with adult patients (≥18) suffering from traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. Articles were acquired in April 2023 from Medline, CINAHL, and Scopus. Risk of bias was assessed through a modified COSMIN checklist. Tabulated results were separated by classification tool (TLICS or AOSpine/TL AOSIS) and reliability, agreement, or imaging modality results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one studies were included in the final review. Interobserver and intraobserver AOSpine morphology reliability was on average superior to TLICS. Increased familiarity with the tool positively influenced both AOSpine and TLICS performance. For surgical treatment recommendation, AOSpine differentiated between stable and unstable burst fractures and guided clinician's more accurately than TLICS. Regarding conservative treatment, both TLICS and AOSpine reported similar clinical accuracy. TLICS performed significantly better when MRI was incorporated compared to CT alone. CT was sufficient as an imaging modality for AOSpine/TL AOSIS performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AOSpine outperformed TLICS in surgical reliability, agreement and did not require additional MRI imaging to improve accuracy. Limitations of evidence include low quality of available studies and significant heterogeneity in patient and observer number. Future prospective multicentre research is recommended. This study was not funded and not registered on PROSPERO.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"21925682241311303"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11670229/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241311303","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Systematic Literature Review.

Objectives: To address whether TLICS or AOSpine is best used in clinical practice through assessment of interobserver and intraobserver reliability, agreement, and imaging modality performance.

Methods: This systematic literature review was reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Articles were included based on meeting eligibility criteria: studies evaluating TLICS, AOSpine, and/or TL AOSIS through reliability, agreement, or imaging modality performance with adult patients (≥18) suffering from traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. Articles were acquired in April 2023 from Medline, CINAHL, and Scopus. Risk of bias was assessed through a modified COSMIN checklist. Tabulated results were separated by classification tool (TLICS or AOSpine/TL AOSIS) and reliability, agreement, or imaging modality results.

Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the final review. Interobserver and intraobserver AOSpine morphology reliability was on average superior to TLICS. Increased familiarity with the tool positively influenced both AOSpine and TLICS performance. For surgical treatment recommendation, AOSpine differentiated between stable and unstable burst fractures and guided clinician's more accurately than TLICS. Regarding conservative treatment, both TLICS and AOSpine reported similar clinical accuracy. TLICS performed significantly better when MRI was incorporated compared to CT alone. CT was sufficient as an imaging modality for AOSpine/TL AOSIS performance.

Conclusions: AOSpine outperformed TLICS in surgical reliability, agreement and did not require additional MRI imaging to improve accuracy. Limitations of evidence include low quality of available studies and significant heterogeneity in patient and observer number. Future prospective multicentre research is recommended. This study was not funded and not registered on PROSPERO.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
哪个是上胸腰椎损伤分类工具?TLICS与AOSpine 2013:系统综述。
研究设计:系统文献综述。目的:通过评估观察者之间和观察者内部的可靠性、一致性和成像模式的表现,来解决TLICS或AOSpine在临床实践中是否最好。方法:根据PRISMA 2020指南进行系统文献综述。文章根据符合资格标准纳入:通过可靠性、一致性或影像学表现评估TLICS、AOSpine和/或TL AOSIS的研究,这些研究对创伤性胸腰椎骨折的成年患者(≥18岁)进行了评估。文章于2023年4月从Medline, CINAHL和Scopus获得。通过修改后的COSMIN检查表评估偏倚风险。按分类工具(TLICS或AOSpine/TL AOSIS)和可靠性、一致性或影像学结果进行分类。结果:最终纳入了21项研究。观察者间和观察者内AOSpine形态学可靠性平均优于TLICS。对该工具熟悉程度的提高对AOSpine和TLICS的性能都有积极影响。AOSpine区分稳定型和不稳定型爆裂骨折,比TLICS更准确地指导临床医生进行手术治疗。关于保守治疗,TLICS和AOSpine均报告了相似的临床准确性。与单独CT相比,MRI联合TLICS的表现明显更好。CT作为AOSpine/TL AOSIS表现的成像方式是足够的。结论:AOSpine在手术可靠性、一致性方面优于TLICS,并且不需要额外的MRI成像来提高准确性。证据的局限性包括现有研究的低质量和患者和观察者数量的显著异质性。建议未来进行前瞻性的多中心研究。这项研究没有得到资助,也没有在PROSPERO上注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
期刊最新文献
Are Randomized Trials Better? Comparison of Baseline Covariate Balance of a Propensity Score-Balanced Lumbar Spine IDE Trial and Comparable RCTs. Correlation Between Facet Tropism and Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament in the Cervical Spine. Frontline Voice: AO Spine Member Survey Regarding Spine Oncology Knowledge Generation and Translation Needs. Letter re: "Are Variable Screw Angle Change and Screw-To-Vertebral Body Ratio Associated with Radiographic Subsidence Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion?" Risk Factors Preventing Identification of the Microorganism Causing Vertebral Osteomyelitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1