These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Subaxial injury classification scoring system treatment recommendations: external agreement study based on retrospective review of 185 patients.
    Author: Samuel S, Lin JL, Smith MM, Hartin NL, Vasili C, Ruff SJ, Cree AK, Ball JR, Sergides IG, Gray R.
    Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2015 Feb 01; 40(3):137-42. PubMed ID: 25341989.
    Abstract:
    STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. OBJECTIVE: To test validity of subaxial injury classification (SLIC) treatment recommendations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although SLIC has been tested for reliability, external studies that test the validity of its treatment recommendations are lacking. METHODS: The SLIC score was determined by reviewing imaging studies and clinical records in a consecutive series of 185 patients with subaxial cervical spine trauma presenting to a level 1 spinal injury referral center. Details including attending surgeon responsible for treatment decision, treatment received, and surgical approach were collected. RESULTS: Treatment received matched SLIC guidelines in 93.6% nonsurgically managed patients and 96.3% surgically managed patients. The mean SLIC score of the surgically treated group of patients was significantly higher than that of the nonsurgical group (7.14 vs. 2.22; P<0.001). Sixty-six patients had a SLIC score of 3 or less, and 94% of them were nonsurgically managed (P<0.001). One hundred two patients had a SLIC score of 5 or more, and 95% of them were surgically managed (P<0.001). Seventeen patients had a SLIC score of 4, and 65% were nonsurgically managed (P=0.032). Injury morphology scores were not predictive of surgical approach. Increasing SLIC scores correlated with increasing complexity of treatment (r=0.77; P<0.001). The distribution of patients with regard to severity of injuries and treatment delivered by the 7 spinal surgeons was comparable. The past practice of these 7 fellowship-trained spine surgeons was individually in agreement with SLIC treatment recommendations. CONCLUSION: Our past practice reflects SLIC treatment recommendations for nonsurgical treatment of patients with SLIC scores of 3 or less and surgical treatment of patients with SLIC scores of 5 or more. The use of SLIC as an ordinal severity scale is validated as increasing SLIC scores correlated with increasing complexity of treatment. The injury morphology score did not predict a surgical approach. Significantly higher numbers of patients with a SLIC score of 4 were treated nonsurgically. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]