Early radiographic outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with anatomic versus lordotic cages.

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) interbody implants are shaped anatomically, with a convex superior aspect, or lordotically, with an angle and flat surfaces. However, the effect of implant shape on cervical sagittal balance (CSB) is not well described. Methods: Of the 192 cases reviewed from 2018 to 2019, 118 were included with matching pre- and postoperative imaging. Cases were categorized by interbody implant type (anatomic or lordotic) and number of levels fused (1-level, 2-level, etc.). SurgiMap was used to measure cervical lordosis (CL), C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), T1 slope (T1S), and T1S minus CL (T1S-CL) on pre- and postoperative imaging. Pre- and postoperative parameters were compared within and between each cohort. Change in CL (ΔCL), cSVA (ΔcSVA), and T1S-CL (ΔT1S-CL) were calculated as the difference between pre- and postoperative values and were compared accordingly (1) anatomic versus lordotic and (2) 1-level versus 2-level versus 3-level fusion. Results: Thirty-nine (33.1%), 57 (48.3%), and 22 (18.6%) cases comprised the anatomic, lordotic, and mixed (anatomic and lordotic) groups, respectively. ACDFs improved CL and T1S-CL by 5.71° (p<.001) and 3.32° (p<.01), respectively. CL was improved in the lordotic (5.27°; p<.01) and anatomic (4.57°; p<.01) groups, while only the lordotic group demonstrated improvement in T1S-CL (3.4°; p=.02). There were no differences in ΔCL (p=.70), ΔcSVA (p=.89), or ΔT1S-CL (p=.1) between the groups. Two- and 3-level fusions improved CL by 7.48° (p<.01) and 9.62° (p<.01), and T1S-CL by 4.43° (p<.01) and 5.96° (p<.01), respectively. Conclusions: Overall, ACDFs significantly improved CL and T1S-CL however, there were no differences in CSB correction between the anatomic and lordotic groups. Two- and 3-level fusions more effectively improved CL (vs. single-level) and T1S-CL (vs. 3-level). These results suggest that implants should continue to be personalized to the patient's anatomy, however, future research is needed to validate these findings and incorporate the effects of preoperative deformities.

Does waiting for surgery matter? How time from diagnostic MRI to resection affects outcomes in newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

OBJECTIVE: Maximal safe resection is the standard of care for patients presenting with lesions concerning for glioblastoma (GBM) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Currently, there is no consensus on surgical urgency for patients with an excellent performance status, which complicates patient counseling and may increase patient anxiety. This study aims to assess the impact of time to surgery (TTS) on clinical and survival outcomes in patients with GBM. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 145 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed IDH-wild-type GBM who underwent initial resection at the University of California, San Francisco, between 2014 and 2016. Patients were grouped according to the time from diagnostic MRI to surgery (i.e., TTS): ≤ 7, > 7-21, and > 21 days. Contrast-enhancing tumor volumes (CETVs) were measured using software. Initial CETV (CETV1) and preoperative CETV (CETV2) were used to evaluate tumor growth represented as percent change (ΔCETV) and specific growth rate (SPGR; % growth/day). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were measured from the date of resection and were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 145 patients (median TTS 10 days), 56 (39%), 53 (37%), and 36 (25%) underwent surgery ≤ 7, > 7-21, and > 21 days from initial imaging, respectively. Median OS and PFS among the study cohort were 15.5 and 10.3 months, respectively, and did not differ among the TTS groups (p = 0.81 and 0.17, respectively). Median CETV1 was 35.9, 15.7, and 10.2 cm3 across the TTS groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Preoperative biopsy and presenting to an outside hospital emergency department were associated with an average 12.79-day increase and 9.09-day decrease in TTS, respectively. Distance from the treating facility (median 57.19 miles) did not affect TTS. In the growth cohort, TTS was associated with an average 2.21% increase in ΔCETV per day; however, there was no effect of TTS on SPGR, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), postoperative deficits, survival, discharge location, or hospital length of stay. Subgroup analyses did not identify any high-risk groups for which a shorter TTS may be beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: An increased TTS for patients with imaging concerning for GBM did not impact clinical outcomes, and while there was a significant association with ΔCETV, SPGR remained unaffected. However, SPGR was associated with a worse preoperative KPS, which highlights the importance of tumor growth speed over TTS. Therefore, while it is ill advised to wait an unnecessarily long time after initial imaging studies, these patients do not require urgent/emergency surgery and can seek tertiary care opinions and/or arrange for additional preoperative support/resources. Future studies are needed to explore subgroups for whom TTS may impact clinical outcomes.

Advances in Intraoperative Glioma Tissue Sampling and Infiltration Assessment.

Gliomas are infiltrative brain tumors that often involve functional tissue. While maximal safe resection is critical for maximizing survival, this is challenged by the difficult intraoperative discrimination between tumor-infiltrated and normal structures. Surgical expertise is essential for identifying safe margins, and while the intraoperative pathological review of frozen tissue is possible, this is a time-consuming task. Advances in intraoperative stimulation mapping have aided surgeons in identifying functional structures and, as such, has become the gold standard for this purpose. However, intraoperative margin assessment lacks a similar consensus. Nonetheless, recent advances in intraoperative imaging techniques and tissue examination methods have demonstrated promise for the accurate and efficient assessment of tumor infiltration and margin delineation within the operating room, respectively. In this review, we describe these innovative technologies that neurosurgeons should be aware of.

Technical Aspects of Motor and Language Mapping in Glioma Patients.

Gliomas are infiltrative primary brain tumors that often invade functional cortical and subcortical regions, and they mandate individualized brain mapping strategies to avoid postoperative neurological deficits. It is well known that maximal safe resection significantly improves survival, while postoperative deficits minimize the benefits associated with aggressive resections and diminish patients' quality of life. Although non-invasive imaging tools serve as useful adjuncts, intraoperative stimulation mapping (ISM) is the gold standard for identifying functional cortical and subcortical regions and minimizing morbidity during these challenging resections. Current mapping methods rely on the use of low-frequency and high-frequency stimulation, delivered with monopolar or bipolar probes either directly to the cortical surface or to the subcortical white matter structures. Stimulation effects can be monitored through patient responses during awake mapping procedures and/or with motor-evoked and somatosensory-evoked potentials in patients who are asleep. Depending on the patient's preoperative status and tumor location and size, neurosurgeons may choose to employ these mapping methods during awake or asleep craniotomies, both of which have their own benefits and challenges. Regardless of which method is used, the goal of intraoperative stimulation is to identify areas of non-functional tissue that can be safely removed to facilitate an approach trajectory to the equator, or center, of the tumor. Recent technological advances have improved ISM's utility in identifying subcortical structures and minimized the seizure risk associated with cortical stimulation. In this review, we summarize the salient technical aspects of which neurosurgeons should be aware in order to implement intraoperative stimulation mapping effectively and safely during glioma surgery.