Study Design:Expert opinion.Objectives:Osteoporotic vertebral fractures are of increasing medical importance. For an adequate treatment strategy, an easy and reliable classification is needed.Methods:The working group “Osteoporotic Fractures” of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU) has developed a classification system (OF classification) for osteoporotic thoracolumbar fractures. The consensus decision followed an established pathway including review of the current literature.Results:The OF classification consists of 5 groups: OF 1, no vertebral deformation (vertebral edema); OF 2, deformation with no or minor (<1/5) involvement of the posterior wall; OF 3, deformation with distinct involvement (>1/5) of the posterior wall; OF 4, loss of integrity of the vertebral frame or vertebral body collapse or pincer-type fracture; OF 5, injuries with distraction or rotation. The interobserver reliability was substantial (κ = .63).Conclusions:The proposed OF classification is easy to use and provides superior clinical differentiation of the typical osteoporotic fracture morphologies.

Study Design:Prospective clinical cohort study (data collection); expert opinion (recommendation development).Objectives:Treatment options for nonsurgical and surgical management of osteoporotic vertebral body fractures are widely differing. Based on current literature, the knowledge of the experts, and their classification for osteoporotic fractures (OF classification) the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma has now introduced general treatment recommendations.Methods:a total of 707 clinical cases from 16 hospitals were evaluated. An OF classification–based score was developed to guide in the option of nonsurgical versus surgical management. For every classification type, differentiated treatment recommendations were deduced. Diagnostic prerequisites for reproducible treatment recommendations were defined: conventional X-rays with consecutive follow-up images (standing position whenever possible), magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography scan. OF classification allows for upgrading of fracture severity during the course of radiographic follow-up. The actual classification type is decisive for the score.Results:A score of less than 6 points advocates nonsurgical management; more than 6 points recommend surgical management. The primary goal of treatment is fast and painless mobilization. Because of expected comorbidities in this age group, minimally invasive procedures are being preferred. As a general rule, stability is more important than motion preservation. It is mandatory to restore the physiological loading capacity of the spine. If the patient was in a compensated unbalanced state at the time of fracture, reconstruction of the individual prefracture sagittal profile is sufficient. Instrumentation technique has to account for compromised bone quality. We recommend the use of cement augmentation or high purchase screws. The particular situations of injuries with neurological impairment; necessity to fuse; multiple level fractures; consecutive and adjacent fractures; fractures in ankylosing spondylitis are being addressed separately.Conclusions:The therapeutic recommendations presented here provide a reliable and reproducible basis to decide for treatment choices available. However, intermediate clinical situations remain with a score of 6 points allowing for both nonsurgical and surgical options. As a result, individualized treatment decisions may still be necessary. In the next step, the recommendations presented will be further evaluated in a multicenter controlled clinical trial.

Previously we have reported an increased prevalence of migraine in narcoleptic patients. Because of the theoretical and clinical implications of this finding we recruited an independent new study sample of 100 patients with proven narcolepsy and conducted a structured 26-item interview based on the international diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, the Kiel Headache Questionnaire. Narcolepsy symptoms were measured by means of the Stanford Centre for Narcolepsy Sleep Inventory. Migraine prevalence was twofold to fourfold increased in the narcoleptic patients and amounted to 44.4% in women and 28.3% in men. The onset of narcolepsy symptoms was 12.3 +/- 11.4 years before the onset of migraine symptoms. The results might be regarded as indicative of a common pathophysiological pathway relevant to both of the two disorders.

Study Design:Expert consensus.Objectives:To establish treatment recommendations for subaxial cervical spine injuries based on current literature and the knowledge of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma.Methods:This recommendation summarizes the knowledge of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma.Results:Therapeutic goals are a stable, painless cervical spine and protection against secondary neurologic damage while retaining maximum possible motion and spinal profile. The AOSpine classification for subaxial cervical injuries is recommended. The Canadian C-Spine Rule is recommended to decide on the need for imaging. Computed tomography is the favoured modality. Conventional x-ray is preserved for cases lacking a “dangerous mechanism of injury.” Magnetic resonance imaging is recommended in case of unexplained neurologic deficit, prior to closed reduction and to exclude disco-ligamentous injuries. Computed tomography angiography is recommended in high-grade facet joint injuries or in the presence of vertebra-basilar symptoms. A0-, A1- and A2-injuries are treated conservatively, but have to be monitored for progressive kyphosis. A3 injuries are operated in the majority of cases. A4- and B- and C-type injuries are treated surgically. Most injuries can be treated with anterior plate stabilization and interbody support; A4 fractures need vertebral body replacement. In certain cases, additive or pure posterior instrumentation is needed. Usually, lateral mass screws suffice. A navigation system is advised for pedicle screws from C3 to C6.Conclusions:These recommendations provide a framework for the treatment of subaxial cervical spine Injuries. They give advice about diagnostic measures and the therapeutic strategy.

No abstract