Search

Introduction: Neurosurgery is considered a technically demanding specialty; nonetheless, it also requires non-technical skills (NTSs) to reach mastery. Research question: This study seeks to understand how important NTSs are perceived by neurosurgeons across diverse roles and socio-economic backgrounds. The objective is to identify key NTSs and explore their role in surgical precision, teamwork, and collaboration. Material and method: An international survey involving 372 neurosurgeons from various socio-economic and cultural contexts was conducted. The extensive sample and inclusive methodology provide a comprehensive perspective on the perceived importance of NTSs in neurosurgery. Results: The survey results highlight the universal significance of NTSs among neurosurgeons. Attention to detail, humility, and self-awareness are considered essential for surgical precision, effective teamwork, and collaboration. The findings underscore the necessity for integrated training programs that combine NTSs with technical skills. Discussion and conclusion: The study emphasizes the importance of effective training methods such as simulations, mentorship, and role-playing in equipping neurosurgeons to navigate the complexities of their profession. Future research should focus on optimizing teaching methods for NTSs, comparing traditional courses, online modules, and hybrid training programs. Addressing the global disparity in neurosurgical care, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, is crucial for improving patient outcomes worldwide.

A transceiver volume coil for High Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging was developed based on Temnikov’s NMR probe coil. The critical advantage of this design is that requires only one trimmer capacitor for both tuning and matching. Electromagnetic simulations of our coil were compared to a four-rung birdcage coil to evaluate their performances. A transceiver coil prototype, called the double-cross coil and a birdcage coil were built to compare and contrast their feasibility. Both coil prototypes were operated in the linear mode. Experimental quality factors were Qu/Ql=101/45 for the double-cross coil and Qu/Ql=105/43 for the birdcage coil. Phantom images were acquired to test the viability of each coil for high field magnetic resonance imaging applications. The signal-to-noise ratios, noise factors and uniformity values were also calculated: 85.26/0.74/44.48 for the double-cross coil and 76.54/1.9/65.65 for the birdcage coil. These volume coils showed similar performance, but the double-cross coil has better uniformity and a slightly lower noise figure than the birdcage coil. A remarkable agreement of experimental and simulated B1 was obtained for the double-cross coil. These experimental and numerical results demonstrate the feasibility of the double-cross volume coil with better uniformity for rodent magnetic resonance imaging at 7 T.

Introduction: Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is the leading cause of death in patients with epilepsy. Most studies concerning this issue have been conducted in central and northern European countries and the United States. We conducted an epidemiologic study of SUDEP at our hospital's epilepsy unit. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all epileptic patients aged ≥14 years, regardless of epilepsy severity, who were treated at the outpatient epilepsy unit of our hospital between 2000 and 2013. The study included 2309 patients. Deceased patients were identified using civil records. The cause of death was obtained from death certificates, autopsy reports, hospital reports, general practitioner records, and witnesses of the event. We calculated the incidence and proportional mortality of SUDEP based on our data. Results: We identified 7 cases of definite SUDEP (2 patients with SUDEP plus), one case of probable SUDEP, and one case of possible SUDEP. Considering only cases of definite SUDEP, incidence was estimated at 0.44 cases per 1000 patient-years and proportional mortality at 4.6%. Mean age of patients with definite SUDEP was 38.14 years; 4 were men and 3 were women. Most deaths occurred while patients were in bed and were therefore unwitnessed. Epilepsy in these patients was either remote symptomatic or cryptogenic. All patients but 2 had generalised seizures. None of the patients was in remission. Conclusions: SUDEP incidence and proportional mortality rates in our study are similar to those reported by population studies. This may be due to the fact that we did not select patients by severity. Risk factors for SUDEP in our sample are therefore consistent with those reported in the literature. Resumen: Introducción: La muerte súbita en epilepsia (SUDEP) es la causa más frecuente de muerte atribuible a la propia enfermedad. Casi toda la información sobre esta entidad procede de estudios realizados en el centro/norte de Europa y Estados Unidos. Presentamos la casuística de SUDEP de la Unidad Médica de Epilepsia de nuestro hospital. Métodos: Estudiamos una cohorte histórica hospitalaria española, sin selección de pacientes por su gravedad, con 2.309 pacientes, de edad ≥14 años, entre enero de 2000 y junio de 2013. La identificación de los fallecidos se realizó a través de los Registros Civiles. Las causas de muerte se establecieron mediante certificados de defunción, autopsias forenses, informes de mortalidad hospitalarios, de médicos de familia y de testigos de los fallecimientos. Calculamos la incidencia y la mortalidad proporcional. Resultados: Identificamos 7 casos de SUDEP definitivas (2 SUDEP-plus), uno probable y uno posible. Considerando solo los casos con autopsia, la incidencia es de 0,44/1.000 persona-año; la mortalidad proporcional es del 4,6%. Son 4 varones y 3 mujeres. La edad media es de 38,14 años. Casi todos los fallecimientos ocurrieron sin testigos, en la cama. La etiología de la epilepsia es sintomática remota o criptogénica. Menos 2 pacientes, todos tenían crisis generalizadas. Ninguno estaba en remisión. Conclusiones: Pensamos que la incidencia y la mortalidad proporcional de SUDEP de nuestro estudio se asemejan a las encontradas en estudios poblacionales por el carácter escasamente seleccionado de nuestra cohorte. Los factores de riesgo para SUDEP encontrados en nuestros pacientes son concordantes con los reconocidos en la bibliografía.

Resumen: Introducción: La muerte súbita en epilepsia (SUDEP) es la causa más frecuente de muerte atribuible a la propia enfermedad. Casi toda la información sobre esta entidad procede de estudios realizados en el centro/norte de Europa y Estados Unidos. Presentamos la casuística de SUDEP de la Unidad Médica de Epilepsia de nuestro hospital. Métodos: Estudiamos una cohorte histórica hospitalaria española, sin selección de pacientes por su gravedad, con 2.309 pacientes, de edad ≥ 14 años, entre enero de 2000 y junio de 2013. La identificación de los fallecidos se realizó a través de los Registros Civiles. Las causas de muerte se establecieron mediante certificados de defunción, autopsias forenses, informes de mortalidad hospitalarios, de médicos de familia y de testigos de los fallecimientos. Calculamos la incidencia y la mortalidad proporcional. Resultados: Identificamos 7 casos de SUDEP definitivas (2 SUDEP-plus), uno probable y uno posible. Considerando solo los casos con autopsia, la incidencia es de 0,44/1.000 persona-año; la mortalidad proporcional es del 4,6%. Son 4 varones y 3 mujeres. La edad media es de 38,14 años. Casi todos los fallecimientos ocurrieron sin testigos, en la cama. La etiología de la epilepsia es sintomática remota o criptogénica. Menos 2 pacientes, todos tenían crisis generalizadas. Ninguno estaba en remisión. Conclusiones: Pensamos que la incidencia y la mortalidad proporcional de SUDEP de nuestro estudio se asemejan a las encontradas en estudios poblacionales por el carácter escasamente seleccionado de nuestra cohorte. Los factores de riesgo para SUDEP encontrados en nuestros pacientes son concordantes con los reconocidos en la bibliografía. Abstract: Introduction: Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is the leading cause of death in patients with epilepsy. Most studies concerning this issue have been conducted in central and northern European countries and the United States. We conducted an epidemiologic study of SUDEP at our hospital's epilepsy unit. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all epileptic patients aged ≥ 14 years, regardless of epilepsy severity, who were treated at the outpatient epilepsy unit of our hospital between 2000 and 2013. The study included 2,309 patients. Deceased patients were identified using civil records. The cause of death was obtained from death certificates, autopsy reports, hospital reports, general practitioner records, and witnesses of the event. We calculated the incidence and proportional mortality of SUDEP based on our data. Results: We identified 7 cases of definite SUDEP (2 patients with SUDEP plus), one case of probable SUDEP, and one case of possible SUDEP. Considering only cases of definite SUDEP, incidence was estimated at 0.44 cases per 1,000 patient-years and proportional mortality at 4.6%. Mean age of patients with definite SUDEP was 38.14 years; 4 were men and 3 were women. Most deaths occurred while patients were in bed and were therefore unwitnessed. Epilepsy in these patients was either remote symptomatic or cryptogenic. All patients but 2 had generalised seizures. None of the patients was in remission. Conclusions: SUDEP incidence and proportional mortality rates in our study are similar to those reported by population studies. This may be due to the fact that we did not select patients by severity. Risk factors for SUDEP in our sample are therefore consistent with those reported in the literature.