Percutaneous Versus Surgical Cutdown Access for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Propensity-Score Matched Studies.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a potential alternative for aortic valve surgery to treat aortic valve stenosis. There is limited evidence on the comparative outcomes of TAVI access approaches, specifically the percutaneous (PC) vs surgical cutdown (SC) approach. This study aimed to assess the short-term outcomes in patients undergoing PC vs SC access for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. METHODS: PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE were searched to identify relevant studies. The primary outcomes were short-term all-cause mortality, bleeding, vascular complications, and length of in-hospital stay for patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI. Both matched and unmatched observational studies were included and subgroup analyses were performed. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in line with the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Fifteen observational studies involving 7,545 patients (3,033 underwent the PC approach and 2,466 underwent the SC approach) were included. There were no clinically significant between-group differences in short-term mortality, bleeding, length of in-hospital stay, or major vascular complications. However, minor vascular complications were significantly higher in patients who underwent PC-TAVI (p=0.007). In the matched subgroup, all outcomes were comparable between both groups, with the largest difference being observed in minor vascular complications more frequently occurring in the PC group (p=0.08). CONCLUSION: The evidence shows that outcomes were comparable between the two methods of access, rendering both the PC and SC approaches equally effective for transfemoral TAVI. However, it is worth noting that minor vascular complications were more pronounced in the PC group.

Specialty Impact on Patient Outcomes: Paving a Way for an Integrated Approach to Spinal Disorders.

Spinal surgical procedures are steadily increasing globally due to broad indications of certain techniques encompassing a wide spectrum of conditions, including degenerative spine disorders, congenital anomalies, spinal metastases, and traumatic spinal fractures. The two specialties, neurosurgery (NS) and orthopedic surgery (OS), both possess the clinical adeptness to perform these procedures. With the advancing focus on comparative effectiveness research, it is vital to compare patient outcomes in spine surgeries performed by orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons, given their distinct approaches and training backgrounds to guide hospital programs and physicians to consider surgeon specialty when making informed decisions. Our review of the available literature revealed no significant difference in postoperative outcomes in terms of blood loss, neurological deficit, dural injury, intraoperative complications, and postoperative wound dehiscence in procedures performed by neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons. An increase in blood transfusion rates among patients operated by orthopedic surgeons and a longer operative time of procedures performed by neurosurgeons was a consistent finding among several studies. Other findings include a prolonged hospital stay, higher hospital readmission rates, and lower cost of procedures in patients operated on by orthopedic surgeons. A few studies revealed lower sepsis rates unplanned intubation rates and higher incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) and pneumonia postoperatively among patient cohorts operated by neurosurgeons. Certain limitations were identified in the studies including the use of large databases with incomplete information related to patient and surgeon demographics. Hence, it is imperative to account for these confounding variables in future studies to alleviate any biases. Nevertheless, it is essential to embrace a multidisciplinary approach integrating the surgical expertise of the two specialties and develop standardized management guidelines and techniques for spinal disorders to mitigate complications and enhance patient outcomes.