Search

Purpose: We aimed to investigate surgical outcomes in octogenarians with subaxial cervical spine injuries and determine the predictors of complications and mortality., Methods: Eligible for inclusion were all patients surgically treated between 2006 and 2018, with either anterior or posterior fixation for subaxial spine injuries. A cohort of octogenarians was identified and matched 1:1 to a corresponding cohort of younger adults. Primary outcomes were perioperative complications and mortality., Results: Fifty-four patients were included in each of the octogenarian and younger groups (median age: 84.0 vs. 38.5). While the risks for surgical complications, including dural tears and wound infections, were similar between groups, the risks of postoperative medical complications, including respiratory or urinary tract infections, were significantly higher among the elderly (p < 0.05). Additionally, there were no differences in operative time (p = 0.625) or estimated blood loss (p = 0.403) between groups. The 30 and 90-day mortality rates were significantly higher among the elderly (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001). These differences were due to comorbidities in the octogenarian cohort as they were revoked when propensity score matching was performed to account for the differences in American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) grade. Multivariable logistic regression revealed age and ASA score to be independent predictors of complications and the 90-day mortality, respectively., Conclusions: Octogenarians with comorbidities were more susceptible to postoperative complications, explaining the increased short-term mortality in this group. However, octogenarians without comorbidities had similar outcomes compared to the younger patients, indicating that overall health, including comorbidities, rather than chronological age should be considered in surgical decision-making., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Objectives: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a well-established treatment option for carotid stenosis. The choice between general anesthesia (GA) and nongeneral anesthesia (non-GA) during CEA remains a subject of debate, with concerns regarding perioperative complications, particularly myocardial infarctions. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes associated with GA vs non-GA CEA using a large, nationwide database., Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried for patients undergoing CEA between 2013 and 2020. Primary outcome measures including surgical outcomes and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between the 2 anesthesia methods, after 2:1 propensity score matching., Results: After propensity score matching, a total of 25 356 patients (16 904 in the GA and 8452 in the non-GA group) were included. Non-GA compared with GA CEA was associated with significantly shorter operative times (101.9, 95% CI: 100.5-103.3 vs 115.8 95% CI: 114.4-117.2 minutes, P < .001), reduced length of hospital stays (2.3, 95% CI: 2.15-2.4 vs 2.5, 95% CI: 2.4-2.6 days, P < .001), and lower rates of 30-day postoperative complications, including myocardial infarctions (0.8% vs 1.2%, P = .003), unplanned intubations (0.8% vs 1.1%, P = .016), pneumonia (0.5% vs 1%, P < .001), and urinary tract infections (0.4% vs 0.7%, P = .003). These outcomes were notably more pronounced in the younger (≤70 years) and high morbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists 3-5) cohorts., Conclusion: In this nationwide registry-based study, non-GA CEA was associated with better short-term outcomes in terms of perioperative complications, compared with GA CEA. The findings suggest that non-GA CEA may be a safer alternative, especially in younger patients and those with more comorbidities., (Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2024. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF) are both common surgical procedures in the management of pathologies of the subaxial cervical spine. While recent reviews have demonstrated ACCF to provide better decompression results compared to ACDF, the procedure has been associated with increased surgical risks. Nonetheless, the use of ACCF in a traumatic context has been poorly described. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of ACCF as compared to the more commonly performed ACDF., Methods: All patients undergoing ACCF or ACDF for subaxial cervical spine injuries spanning over 2 disc-spaces and 3 vertebral-levels, between 2006 and 2018, at the study center, were eligible for inclusion. Patients were matched based on age and preoperative ASIA score., Results: After matching, 60 patients were included in the matched analysis, where 30 underwent ACDF and ACCF, respectively. Vertebral body injury was significantly more common in the ACCF group (p = 0.002), while traumatic disc rupture was more frequent in the ACDF group (p = 0.032). There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of surgical complications, including implant failure, wound infection, dysphagia, CSF leakage between the groups (p ≥ 0.05). The rates of revision surgeries (p > 0.999), mortality (p = 0.222), and long-term ASIA scores (p = 0.081) were also similar., Conclusion: Results of both unmatched and matched analyses indicate that ACCF has comparable outcomes and no additional risks compared to ACDF. It is thus a safe approach and should be considered for patients with extensive anterior column injury., (© 2024. The Author(s).)