Full-endoscopic versus microscopic spinal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review & meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is routinely treated with spinal decompression surgery, with an increasing trend towards minimally invasive techniques. Endoscopic decompression has emerged as a technique which minimizes approach-related morbidity while achieving similar clinical outcomes to conventional open or microscopic approaches. PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of endoscopic versus microscopic decompression for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic review on randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing endoscopic versus microscopic decompression was conducted, in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Treatment effects were computed using pairwise random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-bias and ROBINS-I tools for randomized and nonrandomized trials respectively. Quality of the overall body of evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS: A total of 19 primary references comprising 1,997 patients and 2,132 spinal levels were included. Endoscopic decompression was associated with significantly reduced intraoperative blood-loss (weighted mean differences [WMD]=-33.29 mL, 95% CI:-51.80 to -14.78, p=.0032), shorter duration of hospital stay (WMD=-1.79 days, 95% CI: -2.63 to 0.95, p=.001), rates of incidental durotomy (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.91, p=.0184) and surgical site infections (RR=0.23, 95% CI: 0.10 to-0.51, p=.001), and a nonsignificant trend towards less back pain, leg pain, and better functional outcomes compared to its microscopic counterpart up to 2-year follow up. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic and microscopic decompression are safe and effective techniques for treatment of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Prospective studies of larger power considering medium to long-term outcomes and rates of iatrogenic instability are warranted to compare potential alignment changes and destabilization from either techniques.

Cardiovascular Risk in Patients with Hematological Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs) are at risk of future cardiovascular (CV) events. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify their risk of future CV events. We searched Medline and EMBASE databases from inception until January 31, 2023 for relevant articles using a combination of keywords and medical subject headings. Studies examining CV outcomes in patients with HM versus controls without HM were included. The outcomes of interest included acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and stroke. The outcomes were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). This study is registered with PROSPERO at CRD42022307814. A total of 15 studies involving 1,960,144 cases (178,602 patients with HM and 1,781,212 controls) were included in the quantitative analysis. A total of 10 studies examined the risk of AMI, 5 examined HF, and 11 examined stroke. Compared with the control group, the HRs for HM for AMI, HF, and stroke were 1.65 (95% CI 1.29 to 2.09, p <0.001), 4.82 (95% CI 3.72 to 6.25, p <0.001), and 1.60 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.97, p <0.001), respectively. The sensitivity analysis of stroke risk based on lymphoma type showed an increased risk of stroke in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma compared with controls (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.64, p = 0.03) but no significant difference for Hodgkin lymphoma (HR 1.67, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.23, p = 0.08). Patients with HM are at increased risk of future AMI, HF, and stroke, and these findings suggest that CV care of patients with HM should be considered as a growing priority.

The association between cancer diagnosis, care, and outcomes in 1 million patients hospitalized for acute pulmonary embolism.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical care provided to cancer patients hospitalized for acute pulmonary embolism (PE), as well as the association between type of cancer, in-hospital care, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This study examined the in-hospital care (systemic thrombolysis, catheter-directed thrombolysis, and surgical thrombectomy/embolectomy) and clinical outcomes (mortality, major bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke) among adults hospitalized due to acute PE between October 2015 to December 2018 using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). RESULTS: Of 1,090,130 hospital records included in the analysis, 216,825 (19.9%) had current cancer diagnoses, including lung (4.7%), hematological (2.5%), colorectal (1.6%), breast (1.3%), prostate (0.8%), and 'other' cancer (9.0%). Cancer patients had lower adjusted odds of receiving systemic thrombolysis, catheter-directed therapy, and surgical thrombectomy/embolectomy compared with their non-cancer counterparts (P < 0.001), except for systemic thrombolysis (aOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85-1.09, P = 0.553) and catheter-directed therapy (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67-1.00, P = 0.053) for prostate cancer. Cancer patients had greater odds of mortality (P < 0.05). Lung cancer patients had the highest odds of mortality (aOR 2.68, 95% CI 2.61-2.76, P < 0.001) and hemorrhagic stroke (aOR 1.75, 95% CI 1.61-1.90, P < 0.001), while colorectal cancer patients had the greatest odds of bleeding (aOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.94-2.15, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among those hospitalized for PE, cancer diagnoses were associated with lower odds of invasive management and poorer in-hospital outcomes, with metastatic status being an especially important determinant. Appropriateness of care could not be assessed in this study.