What is the role of neurosurgeons in the current management of intracranial aneurysm in France?

Neurochirurgie 68 (2022) 16–20 

Study Design. – Retrospective observational survey-based study.

Introduction. – In France, intracranial aneurysm (IA) patients are managed by neurosurgeons and by interventional neuroradiologists. The growth of endovascular treatment led us to reflect on the role of neurosurgeons in the management of patients with IA. The present study aimed to highlight the current organization of IA management in France.

Method. – A 60-question survey was sent to the neurosurgeons in 34 hospitals managing IA patients. Thirty-three questions dealt with standards of care, follow-up procedures and the involvement of thespecific specialist.

Results. – Twenty-seven centers (79.4%) responded to the survey. A Vascular Multidisciplinary DiscussionTeam was organized, including both surgeons and neuroradiologists, in 92% of responding centers. There were department protocols in 66% of centers, a local registry in 33% and clinical trials in IA in 60%. Patients with unruptured IA were first seen by a neurosurgeon or by an interventional neuroradiologist, with different practices. For ruptured IA, the neurosurgeons were contacted first in 93% of cases, and were systematically involved in initial intensive care unit management. The patients were hospitalized in the neurosurgery department in 89% of the centers. The neurosurgeons took care of initial follow-up in 85%of the centers, and of lifetime follow-up in 36%. In most centers, radiological monitoring of IA was based on MRI angiography for patients who were embolized or under surveillance, and on CT angiography after microsurgery.

Conclusion. – Despite the growth of endovascular treatments, the present survey and the literature highlight a major role of neurosurgeons in treatment, follow-up and care coordination

Early Outcomes of Elective Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion for Degenerative Spine Disease Correlate With the Specialty of the Surgeon Performing the Procedure

Neurosurgery 90:99–105, 2022

Comparative effectiveness research has a vital role in recent health reform and policies. Specialty training is one of these provider-side variables, and surgeons who were trained in different specialties may have different outcomes on performing the same procedure.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of spine surgeon specialty (neurosurgery vs orthopedic surgery) on early perioperative outcome measures of elective anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative spine diseases.

METHODS: This was a retrospective, 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort study. In total, 21 211 patients were reviewed from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Propensity score matching and subgroup analysis were performed.

RESULTS: In both groups (single-level/multilevel ACDF), patients operated on by neurosurgeons had longer operation time (133 vs 104 min/164 vs 138 min), shorter total hospital stay (24 vs 41 h/25 vs 46 h), and lower rates of return to operating room (0.7% vs 2.1%/0.6% vs 2.4%), nonhome discharge (1.2% vs 4.6%/1.0% vs 4.9%), discharge after postoperative day 1 (6.7% vs 11.9%/10.1% vs 18.9%), perioperative blood transfusion (0.4% vs 2.1%/0.6% vs 3.1%), and sepsis (0.2% vs 0.7%/0.1% vs 0.7%; P < .05). In the singlelevel ACDF group, patients operated on by neurosurgeons had lower readmission (1.9% vs 4.1%) and unplanned intubation rates (0.1% vs 1.1%; P < .05). Other outcome measures and mortality rates were similar among the 2 cohorts in both groups.

CONCLUSION: Our analysis found significant differences in early perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing ACDF by neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons. These differences might have significant clinical and cost implications for patients, physicians, program directors, payers, and health systems.

%d bloggers like this: