Regional and experiential differences in surgeon preference for the treatment of cervical facet injuries: a case study survey with the AO Spine Cervical Classification Validation Group

Purpose: The management of cervical facet dislocation injuries remains controversial. The main purpose of this investigation was to identify whether a surgeon’s geographic location or years in practice influences their preferred management of traumatic cervical facet dislocation injuries. Methods: A survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. The survey included clinical case scenarios of cervical facet dislocation injuries and asked responders to select preferences among various diagnostic and management options. Results: A total of 189 complete responses were received. Over 50% of responding surgeons in each region elected to initiate management of cervical facet dislocation injuries with an MRI, with 6 case exceptions. Overall, there was considerable agreement between American and European responders regarding management of these injuries, with only 3 cases exhibiting a significant difference. Additionally, results also exhibited considerable management agreement between those with ≤ 10 and > 10 years of practice experience, with only 2 case exceptions noted. Conclusion: More than half of responders, regardless of geographical location or practice experience, identified MRI as a screening imaging modality when managing cervical facet dislocation injuries, regardless of the status of the spinal cord and prior to any additional intervention. Additionally, a majority of surgeons would elect an anterior approach for the surgical management of these injuries. The study found overall agreement in management preferences of cervical facet dislocation injuries around the globe

Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the {AO} Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System

OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (< 5 years, 5–10 years, 10–20 years, and > 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (< 5 years: 0.74 vs 5–10 years: 0.69 vs 10–20 years: 0.69 vs > 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (< 5 years: 0.67 vs 5–10 years: 0.62 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (< 5 years: 0.62 vs 5–10 years: 0.61 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system

Health, well-being, and burnout amongst Early Career Doctors in Nigeria.

BackgroundEarly Career Doctors (ECDs) in Nigeria are faced with many individual and systemic problems, which consequently adversely affect their health, well-being, patient care and safety.ObjectiveThis study, the second phase of the Challenges of Residency Training and Early Career Doctors in Nigeria (CHARTING II) Study, sought to examine the risk factors and contributors to the health, well-being and burnout amongst Nigerian ECDs.MethodsThis was a study of health, well-being and burnout amongst Nigerian ECDs. Outcome variables included burnout, depression, and anxiety, which were respectively assessed using the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) and Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) depression scale, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scale. The quantitative data obtained was analysed using the IBM SPSS, version 24. Associations between categorical outcome and independent variables were assessed using chi square, with level of significance set at ResultsThe mean body mass index (BMI), durations of smoking and alcohol consumption of the ECDs were 25.64 ± 4.43 kg/m2 (overweight range), 5.33 ± 5.65 years and 8.44 ± 6.43 years respectively. Less than a third (157, 26.9%) of the ECDs exercised regularly. The most common disease conditions affecting the ECDs were musculoskeletal (65/470, 13.8%) and cardiovascular diseases (39/548, 7.1%). Almost a third (192, 30.6%) of the ECDs reported experiencing anxiety. Male and lower cadre ECDs were more likely than female and higher cadre ECDs to report anxiety, burnout and depression.ConclusionThere is an urgent need to prioritize the health and well-being of Nigerian ECDs, so as to optimize patient care and improve Nigeria's healthcare indices

Work hours, burnout, anxiety and depression and cadre differences amongst Nigerian ECDs.

Work hours, burnout, anxiety and depression and cadre differences amongst Nigerian ECDs.</p

Lifestyles and current health status of Nigerian ECDs.

Lifestyles and current health status of Nigerian ECDs.</p

Work hours, burnout, anxiety and depression and gender differences amongst Nigerian ECDs.

Work hours, burnout, anxiety and depression and gender differences amongst Nigerian ECDs.</p

Relationship between lifestyles and current health status and cadre of Nigerian ECDs.

Relationship between lifestyles and current health status and cadre of Nigerian ECDs.</p

Sociodemographic characteristics of ECDs in Nigeria.

Sociodemographic characteristics of ECDs in Nigeria.</p