Performance of a Large Language Model in the Generation of Clinical Guidelines for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Large language models, such as chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT), have great potential for streamlining medical processes and assisting physicians in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the potential of ChatGPT's 2 models (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0) to support clinical decision-making by comparing its responses for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery to accepted clinical guidelines. METHODS: ChatGPT models were prompted with questions from the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery (2013). Its responses were then compared and assessed for accuracy. RESULTS: Of the 16 NASS guideline questions concerning antibiotic prophylaxis, 10 responses (62.5%) were accurate in ChatGPT's GPT-3.5 model and 13 (81%) were accurate in GPT-4.0. Twenty-five percent of GPT-3.5 answers were deemed as overly confident while 62.5% of GPT-4.0 answers directly used the NASS guideline as evidence for its response. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT demonstrated an impressive ability to accurately answer clinical questions. GPT-3.5 model's performance was limited by its tendency to give overly confident responses and its inability to identify the most significant elements in its responses. GPT-4.0 model's responses had higher accuracy and cited the NASS guideline as direct evidence many times. While GPT-4.0 is still far from perfect, it has shown an exceptional ability to extract the most relevant research available compared to GPT-3.5. Thus, while ChatGPT has shown far-reaching potential, scrutiny should still be exercised regarding its clinical use at this time.

ChatGPT versus NASS clinical guidelines for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Clinical guidelines, developed in concordance with the literature, are often used to guide surgeons' clinical decision making. Recent advancements of large language models and artificial intelligence (AI) in the medical field come with exciting potential. OpenAI's generative AI model, known as ChatGPT, can quickly synthesize information and generate responses grounded in medical literature, which may prove to be a useful tool in clinical decision-making for spine care. The current literature has yet to investigate the ability of ChatGPT to assist clinical decision making with regard to degenerative spondylolisthesis. PURPOSE: The study aimed to compare ChatGPT's concordance with the recommendations set forth by The North American Spine Society (NASS) Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and assess ChatGPT's accuracy within the context of the most recent literature. METHODS: ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 was prompted with questions from the NASS Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and graded its recommendations as "concordant" or "nonconcordant" relative to those put forth by NASS. A response was considered "concordant" when ChatGPT generated a recommendation that accurately reproduced all major points made in the NASS recommendation. Any responses with a grading of "nonconcordant" were further stratified into two subcategories: "Insufficient" or "Over-conclusive," to provide further insight into grading rationale. Responses between GPT-3.5 and 4.0 were compared using Chi-squared tests. RESULTS: ChatGPT-3.5 answered 13 of NASS's 28 total clinical questions in concordance with NASS's guidelines (46.4%). Categorical breakdown is as follows: Definitions and Natural History (1/1, 100%), Diagnosis and Imaging (1/4, 25%), Outcome Measures for Medical Intervention and Surgical Treatment (0/1, 0%), Medical and Interventional Treatment (4/6, 66.7%), Surgical Treatment (7/14, 50%), and Value of Spine Care (0/2, 0%). When NASS indicated there was sufficient evidence to offer a clear recommendation, ChatGPT-3.5 generated a concordant response 66.7% of the time (6/9). However, ChatGPT-3.5's concordance dropped to 36.8% when asked clinical questions that NASS did not provide a clear recommendation on (7/19). A further breakdown of ChatGPT-3.5's nonconcordance with the guidelines revealed that a vast majority of its inaccurate recommendations were due to them being "over-conclusive" (12/15, 80%), rather than "insufficient" (3/15, 20%). ChatGPT-4.0 answered 19 (67.9%) of the 28 total questions in concordance with NASS guidelines (P = 0.177). When NASS indicated there was sufficient evidence to offer a clear recommendation, ChatGPT-4.0 generated a concordant response 66.7% of the time (6/9). ChatGPT-4.0's concordance held up at 68.4% when asked clinical questions that NASS did not provide a clear recommendation on (13/19, P = 0.104). CONCLUSIONS: This study sheds light on the duality of LLM applications within clinical settings: one of accuracy and utility in some contexts versus inaccuracy and risk in others. ChatGPT was concordant for most clinical questions NASS offered recommendations for. However, for questions NASS did not offer best practices, ChatGPT generated answers that were either too general or inconsistent with the literature, and even fabricated data/citations. Thus, clinicians should exercise extreme caution when attempting to consult ChatGPT for clinical recommendations, taking care to ensure its reliability within the context of recent literature.

Vertebral body tethering for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a review.

PURPOSE: Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) remains the most common type of pediatric scoliosis, mostly affecting children between ages 10 and 18. Vertebral body tethering (VBT) offers a non-fusion alternative to the gold standard spinal fusion that permits flexibility and some growth within instrumented segments. This article will serve as a comprehensive literature review of the current state-of-the-art of VBT in relation to radiographic and clinical outcomes, complications, and the learning curve associated with the procedure. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from April 2002 to December 2022. Studies were included if they discussed VBT and consisted of clinical studies in which a minimum 2-years follow-up was reported, and series that included anesthetic considerations, learning curve, and early operative morbidity. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies spanning the period from April 2002 to December 2022 were reviewed. CONCLUSION: This article illustrates the potential benefits and challenges of the surgical treatment of AIS with VBT and can serve as a basis for the further study and refinement of this technique ideally as a living document that will be updated regularly.

Use of ChatGPT for Determining Clinical and Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation With Radiculopathy: A North American Spine Society Guideline Comparison.

OBJECTIVE: Large language models like chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT) have found success in various sectors, but their application in the medical field remains limited. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using ChatGPT to provide accurate medical information to patients, specifically evaluating how well ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 aligned with the 2012 North American Spine Society (NASS) guidelines for lumbar disk herniation with radiculopathy. METHODS: ChatGPT's responses to questions based on the NASS guidelines were analyzed for accuracy. Three new categories-overconclusiveness, supplementary information, and incompleteness-were introduced to deepen the analysis. Overconclusiveness referred to recommendations not mentioned in the NASS guidelines, supplementary information denoted additional relevant details, and incompleteness indicated omitted crucial information from the NASS guidelines. RESULTS: Out of 29 clinical guidelines evaluated, ChatGPT-3.5 demonstrated accuracy in 15 responses (52%), while ChatGPT-4 achieved accuracy in 17 responses (59%). ChatGPT-3.5 was overconclusive in 14 responses (48%), while ChatGPT-4 exhibited overconclusiveness in 13 responses (45%). Additionally, ChatGPT-3.5 provided supplementary information in 24 responses (83%), and ChatGPT-4 provided supplemental information in 27 responses (93%). In terms of incompleteness, ChatGPT-3.5 displayed this in 11 responses (38%), while ChatGPT-4 showed incompleteness in 8 responses (23%). CONCLUSION: ChatGPT shows promise for clinical decision-making, but both patients and healthcare providers should exercise caution to ensure safety and quality of care. While these results are encouraging, further research is necessary to validate the use of large language models in clinical settings.

Performance of ChatGPT on NASS Clinical Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Comparison Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Comparative analysis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT's) ability to predict appropriate clinical recommendations based on the most recent clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a very common and often debilitating condition that affects many people globally. ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence model that may be able to generate recommendations for low back pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the North American Spine Society Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines as the gold standard, 82 clinical questions relating to low back pain were entered into ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) independently. For each question, we recorded ChatGPT's answer, then used a point-answer system-the point being the guideline recommendation and the answer being ChatGPT's response-and asked ChatGPT if the point was mentioned in the answer to assess for accuracy. This response accuracy was repeated with one caveat-a prior prompt is given in ChatGPT to answer as an experienced orthopedic surgeon-for each question by guideline category. A two-sample proportion z test was used to assess any differences between the preprompt and postprompt scenarios with alpha=0.05. RESULTS: ChatGPT's response was accurate 65% (72% postprompt, P =0.41) for guidelines with clinical recommendations, 46% (58% postprompt, P =0.11) for guidelines with insufficient or conflicting data, and 49% (16% postprompt, P =0.003*) for guidelines with no adequate study to address the clinical question. For guidelines with insufficient or conflicting data, 44% (25% postprompt, P =0.01*) of ChatGPT responses wrongly suggested that sufficient evidence existed. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT was able to produce a sufficient clinical guideline recommendation for low back pain, with overall improvements if initially prompted. However, it tended to wrongly suggest evidence and often failed to mention, especially postprompt, when there is not enough evidence to adequately give an accurate recommendation.

General Versus Nongeneral Anesthesia for Spinal Surgery: A Comparative National Analysis of Reimbursement Trends Over 10 Years.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nongeneral anesthesia (non-GA) spine surgery is growing in popularity and has facilitated earlier postoperative recovery, reduced cost, and fewer complications compared with spine surgery under general anesthesia (GA). Changes in reimbursement policies have been demonstrated to correlate with clinical practice; however, they have yet to be studied for GA vs non-GA spine procedures. We aimed to investigate trends in physician reimbursement for GA vs non-GA spine surgery in the United States. METHODS: We queried the ACS-NSQIP for GA and non-GA (regional, epidural, spinal, and anesthesia care/intravenous sedation) spine surgeries during 2011-2020. Work relative value units per operative hour (wRVUs/h) were retrieved for decompression or stabilization of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed using all baseline variables. RESULTS: We included 474 706 patients who underwent spine decompression or stabilization procedures. GA was used in 472 248 operations, whereas 2458 operations were non-GA. The proportion of non-GA spine operations significantly increased during the study period. Operative times ( P < .001) and length of stays ( P < .001) were shorter in non-GA when compared with GA procedures. Non-GA lumbar procedures had significantly higher wRVUs/h when compared with the same procedures performed under GA (decompression; P < .001 and stabilization; P = .039). However, the same could not be said about cervicothoracic procedures. Lumbar decompression surgeries using non-GA witnessed significant yearly increase in wRVUs/h ( P < .01) contrary to GA ( P = .72). Physician reimbursement remained stable for procedures of the cervical or thoracic spine regardless of the anesthesia. CONCLUSION: Non-GA lumbar decompressions and stabilizations are associated with higher and increasing reimbursement trends (wRVUs/h) compared with those under GA. Reimbursement for cervical and thoracic surgeries was equal regardless of the type of anesthesia and being relatively stable during the study period. The adoption of a non-GA technique relative to the GA increased significantly during the study period.

ChatGPT and its Role in the Decision-Making for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Comparative Analysis and Narrative Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Comparative Analysis and Narrative Review. OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare ChatGPT's responses to the clinical questions and recommendations proposed by The 2011 North American Spine Society (NASS) Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS). We explore the advantages and disadvantages of ChatGPT's responses through an updated literature review on spinal stenosis. METHODS: We prompted ChatGPT with questions from the NASS Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines for LSS and compared its generated responses with the recommendations provided by the guidelines. A review of the literature was performed via PubMed, OVID, and Cochrane on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis between January 2012 and April 2023. RESULTS: 14 questions proposed by the NASS guidelines for LSS were uploaded into ChatGPT and directly compared to the responses offered by NASS. Three questions were on the definition and history of LSS, one on diagnostic tests, seven on non-surgical interventions and three on surgical interventions. The review process found 40 articles that were selected for inclusion that helped corroborate or contradict the responses that were generated by ChatGPT. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT's responses were similar to findings in the current literature on LSS. These results demonstrate the potential for implementing ChatGPT into the spine surgeon's workplace as a means of supporting the decision-making process for LSS diagnosis and treatment. However, our narrative summary only provides a limited literature review and additional research is needed to standardize our findings as means of validating ChatGPT's use in the clinical space.

Comparative outcomes of awake spine surgery under spinal versus general anesthesia: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Awake surgery, under spinal anesthesia (SA), is an alternative to surgery under general anesthesia (GA), in neurological and spine surgery. In the literature, there seem to be some evidence supporting benefits associated with the use of this anesthetic modality, as compared to GA. Currently, there is a notable lack of updated and comprehensive review addressing the complications associated with both awake SA and GA in spine surgery. We hence aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the topic. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted to identify studies that assessed SA in spine surgery from database inception to April 14, 2023, in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Outcomes of interest included estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, operative time, and overall complications. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. RESULTS: In total, 38 studies that assessed 7820 patients were included. The majority of the operations that were treated with SA were single-level lumbar cases. Awake patients had significantly shorter lengths of hospital stay (Mean difference (MD): - 0.40 days; 95% CI - 0.64 to - 0.17) and operative time (MD: - 19.17 min; 95% CI - 29.68 to - 8.65) compared to patients under GA. The overall complication rate was significantly higher in patients under GA than SA (RR, 0.59 [95% CI 0.47-0.74]). Patients under GA had significantly higher rates of postoperative nausea/vomiting RR, 0.60 [95% CI 0.39-0.90]) and urinary retention (RR, 0.61 [95% CI 0.37-0.99]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing awake spine surgery under SA had significantly shorter operations and hospital stays, and fewer rates of postoperative nausea and urinary retention as compared to GA. In summary, awake spine surgery offers a valid alternative to GA and added benefits in terms of postsurgical complications, while being associated with relatively low morbidity.

Thromboembolic prophylaxis in spine surgery: an analysis of ChatGPT recommendations.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Venous thromboembolism is a negative outcome of elective spine surgery. However, the use of thromboembolic chemoprophylaxis in this patient population is controversial due to the possible increased risk of epidural hematoma. ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence model which may be able to generate recommendations for thromboembolic prophylaxis in spine surgery. PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of ChatGPT recommendations for thromboembolic prophylaxis in spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Comparative analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: None. OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy, over-conclusiveness, supplemental, and incompleteness of ChatGPT responses compared to the North American Spine Society (NASS) clinical guidelines. METHODS: ChatGPT was prompted with questions from the 2009 NASS clinical guidelines for antithrombotic therapies and evaluated for concordance with the clinical guidelines. ChatGPT-3.5 responses were obtained on March 5, 2023, and ChatGPT-4.0 responses were obtained on April 7, 2023. A ChatGPT response was classified as accurate if it did not contradict the clinical guideline. Three additional categories were created to further evaluate the ChatGPT responses in comparison to the NASS guidelines: over-conclusiveness, supplementary, and incompleteness. ChatGPT was classified as over-conclusive if it made a recommendation where the NASS guideline did not provide one. ChatGPT was classified as supplementary if it included additional relevant information not specified by the NASS guideline. ChatGPT was classified as incomplete if it failed to provide relevant information included in the NASS guideline. RESULTS: Twelve clinical guidelines were evaluated in total. Compared to the NASS clinical guidelines, ChatGPT-3.5 was accurate in 4 (33%) of its responses while ChatGPT-4.0 was accurate in 11 (92%) responses. ChatGPT-3.5 was over-conclusive in 6 (50%) of its responses while ChatGPT-4.0 was over-conclusive in 1 (8%) response. ChatGPT-3.5 provided supplemental information in 8 (67%) of its responses, and ChatGPT-4.0 provided supplemental information in 11 (92%) responses. Four (33%) responses from ChatGPT-3.5 were incomplete, and 4 (33%) responses from ChatGPT-4.0 were incomplete. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT was able to provide recommendations for thromboembolic prophylaxis with reasonable accuracy. ChatGPT-3.5 tended to cite nonexistent sources and was more likely to give specific recommendations while ChatGPT-4.0 was more conservative in its answers. As ChatGPT is continuously updated, further validation is needed before it can be used as a guideline for clinical practice.

Socioeconomic and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Perception of Health Status and Literacy in Spine Oncological Patients: Insights from the All of Us Research Program.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was performed using the National Institutes of Health All of Us survey database. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess socioeconomic and racial disparities in the perception of personal health, health literacy, and healthcare access among spine oncology patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in health literacy and perception of health status have been described for many disease processes. However, few studies have assessed the prevalence of these disparities among spine oncology patients. METHODS: Adult spine oncology patients, identified using ICD-9/10-CM codes, were categorized by race/ethnicity: White/Caucasian (WC), Black/African-American (BAA), and Non-White Hispanic (NWH). Demographics and socioeconomic status were assessed. Questionnaire responses regarding baseline health status, perception of health status, health literacy, and barriers to healthcare were compared. RESULTS: Of the 1,175 patients identified, 207 (17.6%) were BAA, 267 (22.7%) were NWH, and 701 (59.7%) were WC. Socioeconomic status varied among cohorts, with WC patients reporting higher levels of education ( P<0.001 ), annual income greater than $50K ( P<0.001 ), and home ownership ( P<0.001 ). BAA and NWH patients reported greater rates of 7-day "Severe fatigue" ( P<0.001 ) and "10/10 pain" ( P<0.001 ) and lower rates of "Completely" able to perform everyday activities ( P<0.001 ). WC patients had a higher response rate for "Excellent/Very Good" regarding their own general health ( P<0.001 ) and quality ( P<0.001 ). The WC cohort had a significantly higher proportion of patients responding "Never" when assessing difficulty understanding ( P<0.001 ) and needing assistance with health materials ( P<0.001 ). BAA and NWH were significantly less likely to report feeling "Extremely" confident with medical forms ( P<0.001 ). BAA and NWH had significantly higher response rates to feeling "Somewhat Worried" about healthcare costs ( P<0.001 ) and with delaying medical care given "Can't Afford Co-pay" ( P<0.001 ). CONCLUSION: We identified disparities in perception of health status, literacy, and access among spine oncology patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Transradial versus Transfemoral Approaches in Diagnostic and Therapeutic Neuroendovascular Interventions: A Meta-Analysis of Current Literature.

BACKGROUND: The adoption of the transradial approach (TRA) has been increasing in popularity as a primary method to conduct both diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. As this technique gains broader acceptance and use within the neuroendovascular community, comparing its complication profile with a better-established alternative technique, the transfemoral approach (TFA), becomes more important. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of TRA compared with TFA in patients undergoing diagnostic, therapeutic, and combined neuroendovascular procedures. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A literature search of PubMed and other databases was conducted for studies from all available dates. To compare TRA and TFA, we performed an indirect meta-analysis between studies that mentioned the complications of the procedures. RESULTS: Our search yielded 532 studies, of which 108 met full inclusion criteria. A total of 54,083 patients (9137 undergoing TRA and 44,946 undergoing TFA) were included. Access site complication rate was lower in TRA (1.62%) compared with TFA (3.31%) (P < 0.01). Neurological complication rate was lower in TRA (1.64%) compared with TFA (3.82%) (P = 0.02 and P < 0.01, respectively). Vascular spasm rate was higher in TRA (3.65%) compared with TFA (0.88%) (P < 0.01). Wound infection complication rate was higher in TRA (0.32%) compared with TFA (0.2%) (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing TFA are significantly more likely to experience access site complications and neurological complications compared with patients undergoing TRA. Patients undergoing TRA are more likely to experience complications such as wound infections and vascular spasm.

Crossing the Cervicothoracic Junction in Multilevel Cervical Arthrodesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In multisegment cervical arthrodeses, a common clinical dilemma for the surgeon is whether to extend the fusion past the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ). This meta-analysis compares clinical outcomes and radiologic parameters when crossing and not crossing the CTJ. METHODS: Our outcomes of interest included overall reoperation, successful fusion, adjacent segment disease (ASD) leading to revision surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of stay (LOS). We also studied the postoperative change in radiologic parameters-cervical sagittal vertical axis, cervical lordosis, and T1 slope-and change in Neck Disability Index and neck pain in Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with 1720 patients were included. There were 974 (56.6%) patients in the noncrossing group and 746 (43.4%) patients in the crossing group. Noncrossing was associated with a higher risk of overall reoperation (risk ratio = 1.56; 95% CI: 0.98-2.47) and ASD requiring revision surgery (risk ratio = 2.82; 95% CI: 1.33-5.98; number-needed-to-harm = 22). The noncrossing group had lower EBL by 175 mL and shorter LOS by 1 day; the latter finding was only trending toward statistical significance. Successful fusion and changes in cervical sagittal vertical axis, cervical lordosis, Neck Disability Index, and Visual Analog Scale were not different between the 2 groups at a statistically significant level. CONCLUSIONS: In multilevel cervical arthrodesis, not crossing the CTJ is associated with a higher risk of overall reoperation and ASD requiring reoperation than crossing the CTJ, along with lower EBL and LOS. Differences in successful fusion, patient-reported outcomes, and sagittal radiologic parameters were not significant.

A systematic review supporting the Society for Vascular Surgery Guidelines on the management of carotid artery disease.

BACKGROUND: To support the development of guidelines on the management of carotid disease, a writing committee from the Society for Vascular Surgery has commissioned this systematic review. METHODS: We searched multiple data bases for studies addressing five questions: medical management vs carotid revascularization (CEA) in asymptomatic patients, CEA vs carotid artery stenting (CAS) in symptomatic low surgical risk patients, the optimal timing of revascularization after acute stroke, screening high-risk patients for carotid disease, and the optimal sequence of interventions in patients with combined coronary and carotid disease. Studies were selected and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed when feasible. RESULTS: Medical management compared with carotid interventions in asymptomatic patients was associated with better early outcome during the first 30 days. However, CEA was associated with significantly lower long-term rate of stroke/death at 5 years. In symptomatic low-risk surgical patients, CEA was associated with a lower risk of stroke, but a significant increase in myocardial infarction compared with CAS during the first 30 days. When the long-term outcome of transfemoral CAS vs CEA in symptomatic patients were examined using preplanned pooled analysis of individual patient data from four randomized trials, the risk of death or stroke within 120 days of the index procedure was 5.5% for CEA and 8.7% for CAS, which lends support that, over the long term, CEA has a superior outcome compared with transfemoral CAS. When managing acute stroke, the comparison of CEA during the first 48 hours to that between day 2 and day 14 did not reveal a statistically significant difference on outcomes during the first 30 days. Registry data show good results with CEA performed in the first week, but not within the first 48 hours. A single risk factor, aside from peripheral artery disease, was associated with low carotid screening yield. Multiple risk factors greatly increase the yield of screening. Evidence on the timing of interventions in patients with combined carotid and coronary disease was sparse and imprecise. Patients without carotid symptoms, who had the carotid intervention first, compared with a combined carotid intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, had better outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This updated evidence summary supports the Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines for commonly raised clinical scenarios. CEA was superior to medical therapy in the long-term prevention of stroke/death over medical therapy. CEA was also superior to transfemoral CAS in minimizing long-term stroke/death for symptomatic low risk surgical patients. CEA should optimally be performed between 2 and 14 days from the onset of acute stroke. Having multiple risk factors increases the value of carotid screening.

Association of study design features and treatment effects in trials of chronic medical conditions: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of study design features and treatment effects in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating therapies for individuals with chronic medical conditions. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study. SETTING: RCTs from meta-analyses published in the 10 general medical journals with the highest impact factor published between 1 January 2007 and 10 June 2019 and evaluated a drug, procedure or device treatment of chronic medical conditions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The association between trial design features and the effect size, reporting a ratio of ORs (ROR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: We included 1098 trials from 86 meta-analyses. The most common outcome in the trials was mortality (52%), followed by disease progression (16%) and adverse events (12%). Lack of blinding of patients and study personnel was associated with a larger treatment effect (ROR 1.12; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.25). There was no statistically significant association with random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data, whether trials were stopped early, study funding, type of interventions or with type of outcomes (objective vs subjective). CONCLUSION: The meta-epidemiological study did not demonstrate a clear pattern of association between risk of bias indicators and treatment effects in RCTs in chronic medical conditions. The unpredictability of the direction of bias emphasises the need to make every attempt to adhere to blinding, allocation concealment and reduce attrition bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Single-level awake transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a Mayo Clinic institutional experience and national analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Awake transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a novel technique for performing spinal fusions in patients under conscious sedation. Whether awake TLIF can reduce operative times and decrease the hospital length of stay (LOS) remains to be shown. In this study, the authors sought to assess the differences in clinical outcomes between patients who underwent awake TLIF and those who underwent TLIF under general anesthesia by using institutional experience at the Mayo Clinic and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. METHODS: Chart review was performed for a consecutive series of patients who underwent single-level minimally invasive surgery (MIS)-TLIF performed by a single surgeon (K.A.I.) at a single institution. Additionally, the NSQIP database was queried from 2016 to 2019 for patients who underwent awake TLIF as well as propensity score-matched patients who underwent TLIF under general anesthesia. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients at Mayo Clinic underwent awake single-level MIS-TLIF. The mean operative time was 122 ± 16.68 minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 39 ± 30.24 ml. No intraoperative complications were reported. A total of 96 patients who underwent TLIF (24 awake and 72 under general anesthesia) were analyzed from the NSQIP database. The mean LOS was less in the awake cohort (1.4 ± 1.381 days) than the general anesthesia cohort (3 ± 2.274 days) (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the authors' institutional experience and national analysis has demonstrated that awake MIS-TLIF is efficient and can reduce hospital LOS.

A Systematic Review Supporting the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Guidelines on the Prevention and Treatment of Adverse Events of Injectable Fillers.

BACKGROUND: As the use of injectable skin fillers increase in popularity, an increase in the reported adverse events is expected. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review supports the development of American Society for Dermatologic Surgery practice guideline on the management of adverse events of skin fillers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Several databases for studies on risk factors or treatments of injection-related visual compromise (IRVC), skin necrosis, inflammatory events, and nodules were searched. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. RESULTS: The review included 182 studies. However, IRVC was very rare (1-2/1,000,000 patients) but had poor prognosis with improvement in 19% of cases. Skin necrosis was more common (approximately 5/1,000) with better prognosis (up to 77% of cases showing improvement). Treatments of IRVC and skin necrosis primarily depend on hyaluronidase injections. Risk of skin necrosis, inflammatory events, and nodules may be lower with certain fillers, brands, injection techniques, and volume. Treatment of inflammatory events and nodules with antibiotics, corticosteroids, 5-FU, and hyaluronidase was associated with high response rate (75%-80%). Most of the studies were small and noncomparative, making the evidence certainty very low. CONCLUSION: Practitioners must have adequate knowledge of anatomy, elicit history of skin filler use, and establish preemptive protocols that prepare the clinical practice to manage complications.