Month: August 2023

Posted on

Minimally Invasive Hematoma Evacuation Using the MindsEye Expandable Tubular Retractor

World Neurosurg. (2023) 176:162-167

Recent advances in intraoperative neuronavigation and cranial access devices have facilitated an increasing interest in the use of minimally invasive techniques (minimally invasive surgery) to safely treat
subcortical lesions via a parafascicular approach.

Newly developed expandable retractors, such as the MindsEye system further optimize such approaches. In this technical report, we describe the nuances in minimally invasive surgery parenchymal hematoma evacuation using the MindsEye device.

METHODS: After placement of the device, the inner stylet and inner obturator are removed, and the expandable sheath is left in place and secured into place with a Greenberg refractor. The sheath easily dilates to the surgeon’s preference with a dial, and the walls of the sheath
are composed of a thin, clear, membrane to allow easy visualization of the lesion. We additionally retrospectively reviewed clinical characteristics and outcomes across three patients treated at our facility with spontaneous multicompartment intracranial hematoma using the Mind-sEye system.

RESULTS: We provide a video case demonstrating the use of the MindsEye retractor in a transfrontal parenchymal hematoma evacuation. Successful evacuation with achieved in less than 90 minutes with near total clot removal and resolution of mass effect for all reviewed cases with no patients experiencing procedure-related postoperative decline.

CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive catheter-based and parafascicular approaches using tubular retractors are increasingly recognized as a viable option in the treatment of subcortical lesions. The MindsEye is the first expandable brain access port designed for removal of deep
intracranial lesions. We believe it represents a recent addition in the armament of cranial surgeons.

Posted on

Comparison of Perioperative Complications After Anterior–Posterior Versus Posterior–Anterior–Posterior Cervical Fusion: A Retrospective Review of 153 Consecutive Cases

Neurosurgery 93:373–386, 2023

Although published data support the utilization of circumferential fusion to treat select cervical spine pathologies, it is unclear whether the posterior–anterior–posterior (PAP) fusion has increased risks compared with the anterior–posterior fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the differences in perioperative complications between the 2 circumferential cervical fusion approaches.

METHODS: One hundred fifty-three consecutive adult patients who underwent single-staged circumferential cervical fusion for degenerative pathologies from 2010 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were stratified into the anterior–posterior (n = 116) and PAP (n = 37) groups. The primary outcomes assessed were major complications, reoperation, and readmission.

RESULTS: Although the PAP group was older (P = .024), predominantly female (P = .024), with higher baseline neck disability index (P = .026), cervical sagittal vertical axis (P = .001), and previous cervical operation rate (P < .00001), the major complication, reoperation, and readmission rates were not significantly different from the 360°group. Although the PAP group had higher urinary tract infection (P = .043) and transfusion (P = .007) rates, higher estimated blood loss (P = .034), and longer operative times (P < .00001), these differences were insignificant after the multivariable analysis. Overall, operative time was associated with older age (odds ratio [OR] 17.72, P = .042), atrial fibrillation (OR 158.30, P = .045), previous cervical operation (OR 5.05, P = .051), and lower baseline C1-7 lordosis (OR 0.93, P = .007). Higher estimated blood loss was associated with older age (OR 1.13, P = .005), male gender (OR 323.31, P = .047), and higher baseline cervical sagittal vertical axis (OR 9.65, P = .022).

CONCLUSION: Despite some differences in preoperative and intraoperative variables, this study suggests both circumferential approaches have comparable reoperation, readmission, and complication profiles, all of which are high.

Posted on

Incidence and Risk Factor of Implant Dislocation After Cervical Disk Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of 756 Patients

Neurosurgery 93:330–338, 2023

Implant dislocation after cervical disk arthroplasty (CDA) is obviously a critical complication, but no information about the incidence and associated risk factor has been reported.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence and risk factor of implant dislocation after CDA by a retrospective cohort analysis.

METHODS: A retrospective review of a consecutive series of CDA performed between January 2009 and March 2021 at a single institution was conducted. Analyses of chart records and radiological data established the incidence and associated risk factor of implant dislocation after CDA. A Kaplan-Meier survival estimation of implant survival was performed.

RESULTS: A total of 756 consecutive patients were included in this analysis. Five patients (0.7%) had a migration and even dropout of the artificial disk. The overall cumulative survival rate of the implant reached approximately 99.3% of the 756 patients. Preoperative kyphosis was significantly related to implant dislocation (P = .016), with an odds ratio of 15.013.

CONCLUSION: The incidence of implant dislocation after CDA is as low as 0.7% or 5/756 patients. Preoperative kyphosis significantly increases the risk of postoperative implant dislocation by a factor of 15. The migrating implants could be revealed on radiographs as early as 0.9 to 1.4 months postoperatively and were revised to anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion within half a year. No new event of implant dislocation occurred half a year postoperatively. The overall cumulative survival rate of the implant reached 99.3% of the 756 patients. In conclusion, CDA remains a safe and reliable procedure.

Proudly powered by WordPress