Toward Identifying and Resolving the Challenges to the Prognostic Validation of the Classifications for Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: A Narrative Review.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Mohamed M Aly, Mohammad El-Sharkawi, Andrei F Joaquim, Javier Pizones, Xavier A Santander Espinoza, Eugen C Popescu, Abdulaziz Bin Shebree N, Paul Gerdhem, Cumhur F Öner
{"title":"Toward Identifying and Resolving the Challenges to the Prognostic Validation of the Classifications for Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: A Narrative Review.","authors":"Mohamed M Aly, Mohammad El-Sharkawi, Andrei F Joaquim, Javier Pizones, Xavier A Santander Espinoza, Eugen C Popescu, Abdulaziz Bin Shebree N, Paul Gerdhem, Cumhur F Öner","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001764","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To review the historical thoracolumbar burst fractures (TLBFs) classifications and discuss the probable gaps for their clinical validation.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Despite multiple classification schemes, the treatment decisions for TLBFs in neurologically intact patients remain controversial. There are gaps between the current classifications and their predictive validation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A narrative literature review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The potential barriers to establishing the predictive value of the current classifications of TLBFs could be connected to validation studies' flaws such as nonvalidated outcome measures and challenges of randomization. It could also be related to limited interobserver reliability in diagnosing A3/A4 fractures. Finally, it might be attributed to the inability to incorporate all prognostic variables, such as computed tomography (CT) parameters, patient-related factors, and traumatic disc injury, may result in failed validation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AOSpine Patient and Clinical Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (PROST) and a recently proposed natural experiment observational study hold promise for mitigating methodological challenges. A structured approach for distinguishing A3/A4 fractures and standardized CT criteria for PLC injury is critical to improving reliability. Finally, a treatment algorithm incorporating all potential prognostic variables, independent of the morphologic classification, may improve the predictive value of the classification. Machine learning techniques could be helpful in this context.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001764","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To review the historical thoracolumbar burst fractures (TLBFs) classifications and discuss the probable gaps for their clinical validation.

Summary of background data: Despite multiple classification schemes, the treatment decisions for TLBFs in neurologically intact patients remain controversial. There are gaps between the current classifications and their predictive validation.

Methods: A narrative literature review.

Results: The potential barriers to establishing the predictive value of the current classifications of TLBFs could be connected to validation studies' flaws such as nonvalidated outcome measures and challenges of randomization. It could also be related to limited interobserver reliability in diagnosing A3/A4 fractures. Finally, it might be attributed to the inability to incorporate all prognostic variables, such as computed tomography (CT) parameters, patient-related factors, and traumatic disc injury, may result in failed validation.

Conclusion: AOSpine Patient and Clinical Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (PROST) and a recently proposed natural experiment observational study hold promise for mitigating methodological challenges. A structured approach for distinguishing A3/A4 fractures and standardized CT criteria for PLC injury is critical to improving reliability. Finally, a treatment algorithm incorporating all potential prognostic variables, independent of the morphologic classification, may improve the predictive value of the classification. Machine learning techniques could be helpful in this context.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Spine Surgery
Clinical Spine Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
236
期刊介绍: Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure. Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信