Acta Orthop Belg. 2021 Mar;87(1):181-190.
Controversy surrounding the classification of thoracolumbar injuries has given rise to various classification systems over the years, including the most recent AOSpine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System (ATLICS). This systematic review aims to provide an up-to-date evaluation of the literature, including assessment of a further three studies not analysed in previous reviews. In doing so, this is the first systematic review to include the reliability among non-spine subspecialty professionals and to document the wide variety between reliability across studies, particularly with regard to sub-type classification. Relevant studies were found via a systematic search of PubMed, EBESCO, Cochrane and Web of Science. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted in line with Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Twelve articles assessing the reliability of ATLICS were included in this review. The overall inter-observer reliability varied from fair to substantial, but the three additional studies in this review, compared to previous reviews, presented on average only fair reliability. The greatest variation of results was seen in A1 and B3 subtypes. Least reliably classified on average was A4 subtype. This systematic review concludes that ATLICS is reliable for the majority of injuries, but the variability within subtypes suggests the need for further research in assessing the needs of users in order to increase familiarity with ATLICS or perhaps the necessity to include more subtype-specific criteria into the system. Further research is also recommended on the reliability of modifiers, neurological classification and the application of ATLICS in a paediatric context.
多年来,围绕胸腰椎损伤的分类一直存在争议,因此出现了各种分类系统,包括最新的 AOSpine 胸腰椎损伤分类系统 (ATLICS)。本系统评价旨在提供最新的文献评估,包括分析之前的综述中未分析的另外三项研究。这样,这是第一个包括非脊柱专科专业人员之间可靠性的系统评价,并记录了研究之间可靠性的广泛差异,特别是在亚型分类方面。通过对 PubMed、EBESCO、Cochrane 和 Web of Science 进行系统搜索找到了相关研究。数据提取和质量评估均符合 Cochrane 协作组的指南。本综述共纳入了 12 篇评估 ATLICS 可靠性的文章。总体观察者间可靠性从一般到显著不等,但与之前的综述相比,本综述中的另外三项研究的可靠性平均仅为一般。结果的最大差异见于 A1 和 B3 亚型。A4 亚型的平均分类可靠性最低。本系统评价得出结论,ATLICS 对大多数损伤是可靠的,但亚型内的可变性表明需要进一步研究评估用户的需求,以提高对 ATLICS 的熟悉程度,或者可能需要将更多特定于亚型的标准纳入系统。还建议对修饰符、神经分类以及 ATLICS 在儿科环境中的应用的可靠性进行进一步研究。