Safety and efficacy of the new modified technique for c2 nerve root resection in 3d fluoroscopy navigated instrumentation in the cranio-cervical junction.

PURPOSE: Instrumentation of the C1 vertebra requires either mobilization or transection of the C2 nerve root. This study investigates clinical and radiological outcomes and incidences of C2 neuropathic pain after posterior instrumented fusion in the cranio-cervical junction with or without division of the C2 nerve roots. METHODS: This retrospective study compared two cohorts of patients who underwent instrumented fusion in the cranio-cervical junction. Fifty patients (22 males and 28 females) were operated with complete resection of C2 nerve root ganglion (Ex group), and fifty-one patients (30 men, 21 women) with C2 nerve roots preservation (No group). RESULTS: The incidence of postoperative C2 neuropathy was eight times lower in the Ex group compared to the No group that was statistical significant, p = 0.039. Surgical time was significantly shorter in the No group (p = 0.001). The fusion rates were very high for both groups, without difference between groups (p = 1.0). Autografting from the iliac crest (p = 0.001) as well as postoperative immobilisation with a hard collar (p < 0.001) were required in fewer patients in the Ex group. Also, patients in the Ex group were mobilised faster after surgery (p = 0.49). Overall, complication rates were similar between groups, but the Ex group demonstrated fewer major medical complications (16% vs 31%). Male sex and iliac bone harvesting demonstrated significantly higher OR for development of postoperative complications (p = 0.023 and p = 0.034 respectively) and postoperative mobilization demonstrated significant higher OR for development of postoperative major complications (p = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Resection of the C2 nerve root ganglion during posterior instrumented fusion of the cranio-cervical junction is safe and rarely leads to C2 neuropathy. The technique tends to mitigate the odds of developing postoperative complications.

Long-term Survival after Volatile or Propofol General Anesthesia for Bladder Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective National Registry Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Prospective interventional trials and retrospective observational analyses provide conflicting evidence regarding the relationship between propofol versus inhaled volatile general anesthesia and long-term survival after cancer surgery. Specifically, bladder cancer surgery lacks prospective clinical trial evidence. METHODS: Data on bladder cancer surgery performed under general anesthesia between 2014 and 2021 from the National Quality Registry for Urinary Tract and Bladder Cancer and the Swedish Perioperative Registry were record-linked. Overall survival was compared between patients receiving propofol or inhaled volatile for anesthesia maintenance. The minimum clinically important difference was defined as a 5-percentage point difference in 5-yr survival. RESULTS: Of 7,571 subjects, 4,519 (59.7%) received an inhaled volatile anesthetic, and 3,052 (40.3%) received propofol for general anesthesia maintenance. The two groups were quite similar in most respects but differed in American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status and tumor stage. Propensity score matching was used to address treatment bias. Survival did not differ during follow-up (median, 45 months [interquartile range, 33 to 62 months]) in the full unmatched cohort nor after 1:1 propensity score matching (3,052 matched pairs). The Kaplan-Meier adjusted 5-yr survival rates in the matched cohort were 898 of 3,052, 67.5% (65.6 to 69.3%) for propofol and 852 of 3,052, 68.5% (66.7 to 70.4%) for inhaled volatile general anesthesia, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.15]; P = 0.332). A sensitivity analysis restricted to 1,766 propensity score-matched pairs of patients who received only one general anesthetic during the study period did not demonstrate a difference in survival; Kaplan-Meier adjusted 5-yr survival rates were 521 of 1,766, 67.1% (64.7 to 69.7%) and 482 of 1,766, 68.9% (66.5 to 71.4%) for propofol and inhaled volatile general anesthesia, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.23]; P = 0.139). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing bladder cancer surgery under general anesthesia, there was no statistically significant difference in long-term overall survival associated with the choice of propofol or an inhaled volatile maintenance.

Prospective Study of Preferred Versus Actual Place of Death Among Swedish Palliative Cancer Patients.

Background: The place of death of cancer patients is an important aspect of end-of-life care. However, little research has been conducted regarding factors that may influence the preferred and actual place of death in cancer patients and whether the patients die at their preferred place of death. In this study, we aimed to investigate the preferred and actual place of death for palliative cancer patients, and factors influencing these variables. Methods: Patients diagnosed with cancer and admitted to a palliative care team across three Swedish cities between 2019 and 2022 were asked for participation. Participants completed a questionnaire capturing sociodemographic data and preferred place of death. Further data regarding age, sex, and cancer type were collated at inclusion, and the actual place of death recorded for those deceased by 5-May-2023. Results: The study included 242 patients. A majority (79%) wanted to die at home which was the actual death location for 76% of the patients. When the place-of-death decision was made by the patient alone, 75% chose home, compared to 96% when decided jointly with relatives-a statistically significant variation (p = 0.0037). For the patients who wanted to die at home, 80% actually died at home, with insignificant disparities among subgroups. Conclusions: Most palliative cancer patients in this Swedish cohort preferred and achieved death at home. Involving relatives in decision-making may influence the preferred place of death, however larger studies are needed to comprehensively assess factors affecting the preferred and actual place of death in different subgroups of patients.