To validate the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System with participants of various experience levels, subspecialties, and geographic regions.
A live webinar was organized in 2020 for validation of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System. The validation consisted of 41 unique subaxial cervical spine injuries with associated computed tomography scans and key images. Intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System were calculated for injury morphology, injury subtype, and facet injury. The reliability and reproducibility of the classification system were categorized as slight (ƙ = 0-0.20), fair (ƙ = 0.21-0.40), moderate (ƙ = 0.41-0.60), substantial (ƙ = 0.61-0.80), or excellent (ƙ = > 0.80) as determined by the Landis and Koch classification.
A total of 203 AO Spine members participated in the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System validation. The percent of participants accurately classifying each injury was over 90% for fracture morphology and fracture subtype on both assessments. The interobserver reliability for fracture morphology was excellent (ƙ = 0.87), while fracture subtype (ƙ = 0.80) and facet injury were substantial (ƙ = 0.74). The intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology and subtype were excellent (ƙ = 0.85, 0.88, respectively), while reproducibility for facet injuries was substantial (ƙ = 0.76).
The AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System demonstrated excellent interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology, substantial reliability and reproducibility for facet injuries, and excellent reproducibility with substantial reliability for injury subtype.

The use of wearable sensors to track activity is increasing. Therefore, a survey among AO Trauma members was conducted to provide an overview of their current utilization and determine future needs and directions. A cross sectional expert opinion survey was administered to members of AO Trauma. Respondents were surveyed concerning their experience, subspeciality, current use characteristics, as well as future needs concerning wearable technology. Three hundred and thirty-three survey sets were available for analysis (Response Rate 16.2%). 20.7% of respondents already use wearable technology as part of their clinical treatment. The most prevalent technology was accelerometry combined with smartphones (75.4%) to measure general patient activity. To facilitate the use of wearable technology in the future, the most pressing issues were cost, patient compliance and validity of results. Wearable activity monitors are currently being used in trauma surgery. Surgeons employing these technologies mostly measure simple activity or activity associated parameters. Cost was the greatest perceived barrier to implementation. Further research, especially concerning the interpretation of the outcome values obtained, is required to facilitate wearable activity monitoring as an objective patient outcome measurement tool.

METHODS: Global cross-sectional survey.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the influence of geographic region on the AO Spine Sacral Classification System.
METHODS: A total of 158 AO Spine and AO Trauma members from 6 AO world regions (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin and South America, Middle East, and North America) participated in a live webinar to assess the reliability, reproducibility, and accuracy of classifying sacral fractures using the AO Spine Sacral Classification System. This evaluation was performed with 26 cases presented in randomized order on 2 occasions 3 weeks apart.
RESULTS: A total of 8320 case assessments were performed. All regions demonstrated excellent intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology. Respondents from Europe (k = .80) and North America (k = .86) achieved excellent reproducibility for fracture subtype while respondents from all other regions displayed substantial reproducibility. All regions demonstrated at minimum substantial interobserver reliability for fracture morphology and subtype. Each region demonstrated >90% accuracy in classifying fracture morphology and >80% accuracy in fracture subtype compared to the gold standard. Type C morphology (p2 = .0000) and A3 (p1 = .0280), B2 (p1 = .0015), C0 (p1 = .0085), and C2 (p1 =.0016, p2 =.0000) subtypes showed significant regional disparity in classification accuracy (p1 = Assessment 1, p2 = Assessment 2). Respondents from Asia (except in A3) and the combined group of North, Latin, and South America had accuracy percentages below the combined mean, whereas respondents from Europe consistently scored above the mean.
CONCLUSIONS: In a global validation study of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System, substantial reliability of both fracture morphology and subtype classification was found across all geographic regions.