A systematic review and meta-analysis of fusion rate enhancements and bone graft options for spine surgery.

Our study aimed to evaluate differences in outcomes of patients submitted to spinal fusion using different grafts measuring the effectiveness of spinal fusion rates, pseudarthrosis rates, and adverse events. Applying the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, this systematic review and meta-analysis identified 64 eligible articles. The main inclusion criteria were adult patients that were submitted to spinal fusion, autologous iliac crest (AIC), allograft (ALG), alloplastic (ALP; hydroxyapatite, rhBMP-2, rhBMP-7, or the association between them), and local bone (LB), whether in addition to metallic implants or not, was applied. We made a comparison among those groups to evaluate the presence of differences in outcomes, such as fusion rate, hospital stay, follow-up extension (6, 12, 24, and 48 months), pseudarthrosis rate, and adverse events. Sixty-four studies were identified. LB presented significantly higher proportions of fusion rates (95.3% CI 89.7-98.7) compared to the AIC (88.6% CI 84.8-91.9), ALG (87.8% CI 80.8-93.4), and ALP (85.8% CI 75.7-93.5) study groups. Pseudarthrosis presented at a significantly lower pooled proportion of ALG studies (4.8% CI 0.1-15.7) compared to AIC (8.6% CI 4.2-14.2), ALP (7.1% CI 0.9-18.2), and LB (10.3% CI 1.8-24.5). ALP and AIC studies described significantly more cases of adverse events (80 events/404 patients and 860 events/2001 patients, respectively) compared to LB (20 events/311 patients) and ALG (73 events/459 patients). Most studies presented high risk-of-bias scores. Based on fusion rates and adverse events proportions, LB showed a superior trend among the graft cases we analyzed. However, our review revealed highly heterogeneous data and a need for more rigorous studies to better address and assist surgeons' choices of the best spinal grafts.

Robotic and standard surgical intervention as adjunct therapies for retroperitoneal ganglioneuroma resection: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Ganglioneuroma (GN) is ranked by the International Neuroblastoma Pathology Classification as a benign tumor. It can occur anywhere along the sympathetic nerve chain and surgical excision is the treatment of choice. CASE PRESENTATION: An 18-year-old female patient sought medical assistance after 6 months of constant dorsal and back pain radiating from the thoracic region to the right abdominal flank. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a solid nodular lesion with heterogeneous post-contrast enhancement and lobulated contours, centered on the right foramina of D12-L1, with a projection to the intracanal space, which compressed and laterally displaced the dural sac and had a right paravertebral extension between the vertebral bodies of D11 and superior aspect of L2. Ganglioneuroma was diagnosed using immunohistochemical analysis. It was decided to use a surgical approach in two stages: robot assisted for the anterior/retroperitoneal mass and a posterior hemilaminectomy/microsurgical approach to attempt total resection, avoiding the traditional anterior thoracoabdominal surgical incision and optimizing the patient's postoperative outcomes. No postoperative adverse events were noted, and the patient was discharged on postoperative day 5. CONCLUSION: This retroperitoneal GN presentation was peculiar because it originated at the D12 nerve root, which extended to the retroperitoneal space and inside the spinal canal. We hope that our case report can assist future decisions in similar circumstances.

Laser interstitial thermal therapy as an adjunct therapy in brain tumors: A meta-analysis and comparison with stereotactic radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive procedures are gaining widespread acceptance in difficult-to-access brain tumor treatment. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is the preferred choice, however, laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) has emerged as a tumor cytoreduction technique. The present meta-analysis compared current SRS therapy with LITT in brain tumors. METHODS: A search was performed in Lilacs, PubMed, and Cochrane database. Patient's demographics, tumor location, therapy used, Karnofsky performance status score before treatment, and patient's outcome (median overall survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events) data were extracted from studies. The risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane collaboration tool. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included in this meta-analysis. LITT and SRS MOS in brain metastasis patients were 12.8 months' versus 9.8 months (ranges 9.3-16.3 and 8.3-9.8; P = 0.02), respectively. In a combined comparison of adverse effects among LITT versus SRS in brain metastasis, we found 15% reduction in absolute risk difference (-0.16; 95% confidence interval P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: We could not state that LITT treatment is an optimal alternative therapy for difficult-to-access brain tumors due to the lack of systematic data that were reported in our pooled studies. However, our results identified a positive effect in lowering the absolute risk of adverse events compared with SRS therapy. Therefore, randomized trials are encouraged to ascertain LITT role, as upfront or postoperative/post-SRS therapy for brain tumor treatment.