Comprehensive comparison of carotid endarterectomy primary closure and patch angioplasty: A single-institution experience

Background:

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is an effective intervention for the treatment of high-grade carotid stenosis. Technical preferences exist in the operative steps including the use patch for arteriotomy closure. The goals of this study are to compare the rate of postoperative complications and the rate of recurrent stenosis between patients undergoing primary versus patch closure during CEA.

Methods:

Retrospective chart review was conducted for patients who underwent CEA at single institution. Vascular surgeons mainly performed patch closure technique while neurosurgeons used primary closure. Patients’ baseline characteristics as well as intraprocedural data, periprocedural complications, and postprocedural follow-up outcomes were captured.

Results:

Seven hundred and thirteen charts were included for review with mean age of 70.5 years (SD = 10.4) and males representing 64.2% of the cohort. About 49% of patients underwent primary closure while 364 (51%) patients underwent patch closure. Severe stenosis was more prevalent in patients receiving patch closure (94.5% vs. 89.4%; P = 0.013). The incidence of overall complications did not differ between the two procedures (odds ratio = 1.23, 95% confidence intervals = 0.82–1.85; P = 0.353) with the most common complications being neck hematoma, strokes, and TIA. Doppler ultrasound imaging at 6 months postoperative follow-up showed evidence of recurrent stenosis in 15.7% of the primary closure patients compared to 16% in patch closure cohort.

Conclusion:

Both primary closure and patch closure techniques seem to have similar risk profiles and are equally robust techniques to utilize for CEA procedures.

Mini-Tubular Access Surgery: A Single Surgeon's 12 Years in the Corridors of the Neuroaxis

BACKGROUND

 Tubular approach surgery now includes complex spinal and cranial procedures. Aided by modified instrumentation and frameless stereotaxy, minimal access surgery is being offered for a growing array of neurosurgical conditions.

METHODS

 This article explores the flexibility and adaptability of the tubular retractor system for multiple indications by highlighting the 12-year experience of the primary surgeon using a tubular retractor system reported for the entire neuroaxis including intracranial, foramen magnum, and the craniocaudal extent of the spine for intra- and extradural pathologies. For this article we have not analyzed our experience with degenerative spinal disease. Patient characteristics, pathology, resection results, length of hospital stay, and complications are discussed.

RESULTS

 From August 2005 through March 2017, 538 patients underwent neurosurgical procedures with mini-tubular access. Of these, the 127 patients who underwent mini-tubular access operations for nontraditional indications are discussed here. There were 65 women and 61 men with an average age of 53.5 years. The cases by anatomical location are as follows: 27 cranial cases, 11 foramen magnum decompressions, and 89 for spinal indications. The cranial pathologies included primary and metastatic tumors. The spinal pathologies included intra- and extradural spinal tumors, spina bifida occulta, syringomyelia, and other cystic lesions in the spine. In the vast majority of the patients where gross total resection was the goal, it was achieved. The mean length of stay was 2.94 days.

CONCLUSIONS

 This report demonstrates that mini-tubular access surgery can be adapted to pathologies in the entire neuroaxis with outcomes that are comparable with open techniques. Limited tissue dissection, smaller incisions, and limited bone resection make the mini-tubular access approach a desirable option when feasible. Greater experience with all of these techniques is needed before the definitive status of these procedures in the neurosurgical armamentarium can be demonstrated.

The reporting of study and population characteristics in degenerative cervical myelopathy: A systematic review

OBJECT

Degenerative cervical myelopathy [DCM] is a disabling and increasingly prevalent condition. Variable reporting in interventional trials of study design and sample characteristics limits the interpretation of pooled outcomes. This is pertinent in DCM where baseline characteristics are known to influence outcome. The present study aims to assess the reporting of the study design and baseline characteristics in DCM as the premise for the development of a standardised reporting set.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015025497) was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Full text articles in English, with >50 patients (prospective) or >200 patients (retrospective), reporting outcomes of DCM were deemed to be eligible.

RESULTS

A total of 108 studies involving 23,876 patients, conducted world-wide, were identified. 33 (31%) specified a clear primary objective. Study populations often included radiculopathy (51, 47%) but excluded patients who had undergone previous surgery (42, 39%). Diagnositic criteria for myelopathy were often uncertain; MRI assessment was specified in only 67 (62%) of studies. Patient comorbidities were referenced by 37 (34%) studies. Symptom duration was reported by 46 (43%) studies. Multivariate analysis was used to control for baseline characteristics in 33 (31%) of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting of study design and sample characteristics is variable. The development of a consensus minimum dataset for (CODE-DCM) will facilitate future research synthesis in the future.

Reported Outcome Measures in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Degenerative cervical myelopathy [DCM] is a disabling and increasingly prevalent group of diseases. Heterogeneous reporting of trial outcomes limits effective inter-study comparison and optimisation of treatment. This is recognised in many fields of healthcare research. The present study aims to assess the heterogeneity of outcome reporting in DCM as the premise for the development of a standardised reporting set.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015025497) was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Full text articles in English, with >50 patients (prospective) or >200 patients (retrospective), reporting outcomes of DCM were eligible.

RESULTS

108 studies, assessing 23,876 patients, conducted world-wide, were identified. Reported outcome themes included function (reported by 97, 90% of studies), complications (reported by 56, 52% of studies), quality of life (reported by 31, 29% of studies), pain (reported by 29, 27% of studies) and imaging (reported by 59, 55% of studies). Only 7 (6%) studies considered all of domains in a single publication. All domains showed variability in reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant heterogeneity exists in the reporting of outcomes in DCM. The development of a consensus minimum dataset will facilitate future research synthesis.