Measuring pituitary tumor volume: a comparison of the simplified and non-simplified ellipsoid equation with the 3D planimetric volume assessment.

PURPOSE: The ellipsoid equation came in an attempt to facilitate the estimation of tumor volume, by measuring the height, width, and anteroposterior length of the lesion. The estimated tumor volume can sometimes be different between methods, thus, it is of extreme interest to evaluate if the methods are significantly different, as well as to discuss the main limitations of each one. METHODS: This is an observational, analytical, cross-sectional study. A systematic review of the literature was also performed in order to discuss the results observed in the present study. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients (43 males and 39 females) ranging in age from 15 to 78 years (mean 47.95 ± 14.76) were included in the study. Seven patients were classified as Knosp grade 0 (8.5%), 36 Knosp grade 1 (44%), 14 Knosp grade 2 (17%), 20 Knosp grade 3 (24.4%), 5 Knosp grade 4 (6.1%). The tumor volume estimated by 3D planimetric assessment, non-simplified ellipsoid equation, and simplified ellipsoid formula averaged 10.68 cm³, 10.36 cm³, and 9.9 cm³ respectively. CONCLUSION: A simplified form of the ellipsoid equation increases the divergence between the measurement obtained in planimetry, and should be discouraged, in view of the new automated methods of performing quick calculations using periodic digits. The non-simplified form underestimated the tumor volume by 2.9% on average but did so regularly. In clinical practice, measurement should be accompanied by an evaluation of tumor morphology.

Femoral access site complications following neurointerventional procedures: economic implications at a single center.

OBJECTIVE: Transfemoral access (TFA) has been the traditional route of arterial access for neurointerventional procedures. Femoral access site complications may occur in 2%-6% of patients. Management of these complications often requires additional diagnostic tests or interventions, each of which may increase the cost of care. The economic impact of a femoral access site complication has not yet been described. The objective of this study was to evaluate the economic consequences of femoral access site complications. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing neuroendovascular procedures at their institute and identified those who experienced femoral access site complications. The subset of patients experiencing these complications during elective procedures was matched in a 1:2 fashion to a control group undergoing similar procedures and not experiencing an access site complication. RESULTS: Femoral access site complications were identified in 77 patients (4.3%) over a 3-year period. Thirty-four of these complications were considered major, requiring blood transfusion or additional invasive treatment. There was a statistically significant difference in total cost ($39,234.84 vs $23,535.32, p = 0.001), total reimbursement ($35,500.24 vs $24,861.71, p = 0.020) and reimbursement minus cost (-$3734.60 vs $1326.39, p = 0.011) between the complication and control cohorts in elective procedures, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although occurring relatively infrequently, femoral artery access site complications increase the cost of care for patients undergoing neurointerventional procedures; how this influences the cost effectiveness of neurointerventional procedures warrants further investigation.

Patient satisfaction and cost savings analysis of the telemedicine program within a neuro-oncology department.

PURPOSE: Unique challenges exist in the utilization of telemedicine for neurological and surgical specialties. We examined the differences in patient satisfaction for telemedicine versus in-person visits within a Neuro-Oncology Program to assess whether there was a difference between surgical and medical specialties. We also examined the potential cost savings benefits of utilizing telemedicine. METHODS: 1189 Press Ganey surveys in the Department of Neuro-Oncology (982 in-person and 207 telemedicine) by surgical and medical neuro-oncology patients between 04/01/2020 and 06/30/2021 were reviewed. Survey results were divided into 4 categories (Access, Provider, Technology (telemedicine only), and Overall Satisfaction). Results were analyzed for the impact of telemedicine versus in-person visits, and gender, age, insurance, and specialty. Cost savings were calculated based on potential travel distance and lost productivity. RESULTS: Survey results from telemedicine visits demonstrated that patients with private insurance returned higher scores in the Provider (p = 0.0089), Technology (p = 0.00187), and Overall (p = 0.00382) categories. Surgical patients returned higher scores for Access (p = 0.0015), Technology (p = 0.0002), and Overall (p = 0.0019). When comparing telemedicine to in-person scores, in-person scored higher in Provider (p = 0.0092) for all patients, while in-person scored higher in Access (p = 0.0252) amongst surgical patients. Cost analysis revealed that telemedicine allowed patients to save an average of 4.1 to 5.6 h per visit time and a potential cost savings of up to $223.3 ± 171.4. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine yields equivalent patient satisfaction when employed in surgical as compared to medical Neuro-Oncology patients with the potential to lessen the financial and time burden on neuro-oncology patients.