• F Cumhur Oner, Said Sadiqi, A Mechteld Lehr, Marcel F Dvorak, Bizhan Aarabi, Jens R Chapman, Michael G Fehlings, Frank Kandziora, S Rajasekaran, and Alexander R Vaccaro.
• *Department of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands †Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada ‡Department of Neurosurgery, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD §Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA ¶Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ‖Center for Spinal Surgery, BGU-Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany **Department of Orthopaedic and Spine Surgery, Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India; and ††Department of Orthopaedics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA.
• Spine. 2015 Jan 15; 40 (2): E91E96E91-6.

Study DesignInternational web-based survey.ObjectiveTo identify the most relevant aspects of human function and health status from the perspective of health care professionals involved in the treatment of spinal trauma patients.Summary Of Background DataThere is no universally accepted outcome instrument available that is specifically designed or validated for spinal trauma patients, contributing to controversies related to the optimal treatment and evaluation of many types of spinal injuries. Therefore, the AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma aims to develop such an instrument using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) as its basis.MethodsExperts from the 5 AOSpine International world regions were asked to give their opinion on the relevance of a compilation of 143 ICF categories for spinal trauma patients on a 3-point scale: "not relevant," "probably relevant," or "definitely relevant." The responses were analyzed using frequency analysis. Possible differences in responses between the 5 world regions were analyzed with the Fisher exact test and descriptive statistics.ResultsOf the 895 invited AOSpine International members, 150 (16.8%) participated in this study. A total of 13 (9.1%) ICF categories were identified as definitely relevant by more than 80% of the participants. Most of these categories were related to the ICF component "activities and participation" (n = 8), followed by "body functions" (n = 4), and "body structures" (n = 1). Only some minor regional differences were observed in the pattern of answers.ConclusionMore than 80% of an international group of health care professionals experienced in the clinical care of adult spinal trauma patients indicated 13 of 143 ICF categories as definitely relevant to measure outcomes after spinal trauma. This study creates an evidence base to define a core set of ICF categories for outcome measurement in adult spinal trauma patients.

17 keywords...

hide…