Search

Introduction The middle fossa craniotomy (MFCs) is commonly utilized for spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks, encephaloceles, and superior semicircular canal dehiscence (SSCD). This study compares postoperative outcomes of MFCs with and without LD use. Methods A retrospective cohort study of adults over the age of 18 years presenting for the repair of nonneoplastic CSF leak, encephalocele, or SSCD via MFC from 2009 to 2021 was conducted. The main exposure of interest was the placement of an LD. The primary outcome was the presence of postoperative complications (acute/delayed neurologic deficit, meningitis, intracranial hemorrhage, and stroke). Secondary outcomes included operating room (OR) time, length of stay, recurrence, and need for reoperation. Results In total, 172 patients were included, 96 of whom received an LD and 76 who did not. Patients not receiving an LD were more likely to receive intraoperative mannitol (n = 24, 31.6% vs. n = 16, 16.7%, p = 0.02). On univariate logistic regression, LD placement did not influence overall postoperative complications (OR: 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05–2.02, p = 0.28), CSF leak recurrence (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.25–2.29, p = 0.61), or need for reoperation (OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 0.48–4.96, p = 0.51). While OR time was shorter for patients not receiving LD (349 ± 71 vs. 372 ± 85 minutes), this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.07). Conclusion No difference in postoperative outcomes was observed in patients who had an intraoperative LD placed compared to those without LD. Operative times were increased in the LD cohort, but this difference was not statistically significant. Given the similar outcomes, we conclude that LD is not necessary to facilitate safe MCF for nonneoplastic skull base pathologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, published in the Journal of Neurological Surgery, explores the genetic underpinnings of vestibular schwannoma (VS), a type of brain tumor. The study conducted a transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) using genetic models of gene expression to identify gene-level associations with VS. The researchers identified 63 novel genes with genetically-determined expression associations with VS, including DNPH1, which has been previously associated with tinnitus. These findings provide new insights into the biological mechanisms associated with VS and may lead to the development of targeted therapies for this condition. [Extracted from the article]

Vestibular schwannomas (VS) account for approximately 8% of all intracranial neoplasms. Importantly, the cost of the diagnostic workup for VS, including the screening modalities most commonly used, has not been thoroughly investigated. Our aim is to conduct a systematic review of the published literature on costs associated with VS screening. A systematic review of the literature for cost of VS treatment was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The terms "vestibular schwannoma," "acoustic neuroma," and "cost" were queried using the PubMed and Embase databases. Studies from all countries were considered. Cost was then corrected for inflation using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator, correcting to April 2022. The search resulted in an initial review of 483 articles, of which 12 articles were included in the final analysis. Screening criteria were used for non-neurofibromatosis type I and II patients who complained of asymmetric hearing loss, tinnitus, or vertigo. Patients included in the studies ranged from 72 to 1249. The currency and inflation-adjusted mean cost was $418.40 (range, $21.81 to $487.03, n = 5) for auditory brainstem reflex and $1433.87 (range, $511.64 to $1762.15, n = 3) for non-contrasted computed tomography. A contrasted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan was found to have a median cost of $913.27 (range, $172.25–$2733.99; n = 8) whereas a non-contrasted MRI was found to have a median cost of $478.62 (range, $116.61–$3256.38, n = 4). In terms of cost reporting, of the 12 articles, 1 (8.3%) of them separated out the cost elements, and 10 (83%) of them used local prices, which include institutional costs and/or average costs of multiple institutions. Our findings describe the limited data on published costs for screening and imaging of VS. The paucity of data and significant variability of costs between studies indicates that this endpoint is relatively unexplored, and the cost of screening is poorly understood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic forced operating rooms (ORs) to adopt new safety protocols. Although these measures protected the health of patients and providers, their impact on OR efficiency remains unclear. Our objective was to further elucidate the effects of COVID-19 on orthopedic surgery OR efficiency. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study of 14,856 orthopedic surgeries performed between December 1, 2019, and October 31, 2021. METHODS: Institutional perioperative databases were used to identify relevant orthopedic surgeries. The onset of the COVID-19 period was set as March 12, 2020, when a state of emergency was declared in Tennessee. Both 90-day periods before and after this date were used for comparative analysis of the pre--COVID-19, peak-restrictions, and post--peak-restrictions time periods. Delay of first case start time and turnover time between cases were used as primary measures of efficiency. RESULTS: There were 1853 pre--COVID-19 cases, 1299 peak-restrictions cases, and 11,704 post--peak-restrictions cases analyzed. Delay of first case start time was found to be significantly different among the time periods (mean [SD] minutes, 7 [14] vs 8 [18] vs 7 [17], respectively; P < .001). Turnover time between cases was also significantly different among the time periods (62 [49] vs 66 [51] vs 64 [51]; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Although significant, there was minimal absolute change in orthopedic OR efficiency during the onset of the pandemic. These results suggest that the protocols enacted at our institution appropriately maintained orthopedic OR efficiency, even in the context of the rapidly increasing COVID-19 burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare postoperative outcomes after cranioplasties performed by neurosurgery only (N) versus neurosurgery and plastic surgery combined (N+P)., Methods: A single-center, multisurgeon, retrospective cohort study was undertaken on all cranioplasties performed from November 2006 to December 2021. The primary exposure variable was operating team (N vs. N+P). The primary outcome was the need for reoperation. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infections, complications, length of stay (LOS), and length of drain placement., Results: Of 188 patients undergoing cranioplasty during the study period, 106 (56%) patients were in the N group, and 82 (44%) were in the N+P group. Patient demographics were similar between the 2 groups. For the primary outcome, a total of 20 (18.9%) reoperations were seen in the N group, and 13 (15.9%) in the N+P group (P = 0.708). However, the median time to reoperation was slightly longer in the N+P group in the survival analysis. Wound dehiscence (1.9% vs. 3.7%, P = 0.454), surgical site infection (5.7% vs. 9.8%, P = 0.289), and complication rate (30.2% vs. 32.9%, P = 0.688) did not differ between the 2 groups. Furthermore, the N group had less Jackson-Pratt drain use (58.5% vs. 85.4%, P < 0.001), earlier drain removal (1.9 ± 1.6 vs. 3.4 ± 3.9 days, P < 0.001), and shorter LOS (3.8 ± 5.9 vs. 4.7 ± 3.9 days, P < 0.001). On multivariate regression analysis controlling for age, body mass index, smoking, craniectomy type, reason for craniectomy, and graft type, N+P was associated with increased drain use (odds ratio = 4.90, 95% confidence interval 2.28-11.30, P < 0.001) and longer drain duration (β = 1.50, 95% confidence interval 0.43-2.60, P = 0.007)., Conclusions: Despite similar complication and reoperation rates between groups, reoperations in the N group occurred sooner, whereas the N+P group more commonly used drains and kept drains in for longer., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Narrative letters of recommendation (NLORs) are considered by neurosurgical program directors to be among the most important parts of the residency application. However, the utility of these NLORs in predicting match outcomes compared to objective measures has not been determined. In this study, the authors compare the performance of machine learning models trained on applicant NLORs and demographic data to predict match outcomes and investigate whether narrative language is predictive of standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR) rankings., Methods: This study analyzed 1498 NLORs from 391 applications submitted to a single neurosurgery residency program over the 2020-2021 cycle. Applicant demographics and match outcomes were extracted from Electronic Residency Application Service applications and training program websites. Logistic regression models using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator were trained to predict match outcomes using applicant NLOR text and demographics. Another model was trained on NLOR text to predict SLOR rankings. Model performance was estimated using area under the curve (AUC)., Results: Both the NLOR and demographics models were able to discriminate similarly between match outcomes (AUCs 0.75 and 0.80; p = 0.13). Words including "outstanding," "seamlessly," and "AOA" (Alpha Omega Alpha) were predictive of match success. This model was able to predict SLORs ranked in the top 5%. Words including "highest," "outstanding," and "best" were predictive of the top 5% SLORs., Conclusions: NLORs and demographic data similarly discriminate whether applicants will or will not match into a neurosurgical residency program. However, NLORs potentially provide further insight regarding applicant fit. Because words used in NLORs are predictive of both match outcomes and SLOR rankings, continuing to include narrative evaluations may be invaluable to the match process.