Comparative cost analysis of endovascular and open approaches for elective treatment of middle cerebral artery aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial aneurysms of the middle cerebral artery can be treated using several open surgical and endovascular approaches. Given the growing evidence of clinical equipoise between these various treatment strategies, there is a need to assess the costs associated with each. METHODS: Cost of aneurysm treatment was divided into two categories for comparison. "Initial cost" comprised the total in-hospital expenses for initial aneurysm treatment and "total cost" comprised initial aneurysm treatment and all expenses relating to readmission due to treatment-related complications, prescribed catheter angiograms for monitoring of treatment stability, and any retreatments needed for a given aneurysm. The open surgical group was subdivided into a pterional approach group and a lateral supraorbital (LSO) approach group for. RESULTS: Median initial cost was $37,152 (IQR $31,318-$44,947) for aneurysms treated with the pterional approach, $29,452 (IQR $27,779-$32,826) for aneurysms treated with the LSO approach, and $19,587 (IQR $14,125-$30,521) for aneurysms treated with endovascular approaches. The median total cost was $39,737 (IQR $33,891-$62,259) for aneurysms treated with the pterional approach, $31,785 (IQR $29,513-$41,099) for aneurysms treated with the LSO approach, and $24,578 (IQR $18,977-$34,547) for aneurysms treated with endovascular approaches. Analysis of variance test demonstrated variance across groups for both initial and total cost (p = 0.004, p = 0.008, respectively). In our subsequent analysis, initial cost and total cost were higher in the pterional group than the endovascular group (p = 0.003 and p = 0.006, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment of elective aneurysms has a significantly lower cost than open surgical treatment with the pterional approach, but not with the LSO approach. For aneurysms not amenable to endovascular treatment, a minimally invasive LSO approach carries a lower cost burden than a pterional approach.

Impact of Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation awards on subsequent grant funding and career outcomes of neurosurgeon-scientists.

OBJECTIVE: The Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF) provides diverse funding opportunities for in-training and early-career neurosurgeon-scientists. The authors analyzed the impact of NREF funding on the subsequent career success of neurosurgeons in obtaining research funding and academic achievements. METHODS: The NREF database was queried to identify NREF winners from 2000 to 2015. The award recipients were surveyed to obtain information about their demographic characteristics, academic career, and research funding. Only subsequent research support with an annual funding amount of $50,000 or greater was included. The primary outcome was the NREF impact ratio, defined as the ratio between NREF award research dollars and subsequent grant funding dollars. The secondary outcomes were time to subsequent grant funding as principal investigator (PI), clinical practice settings, and final academic position achieved. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2015, 158 neurosurgeons received 164 NREF awards totaling $8.3 million (M), with $1.7 M awarded to 46 Young Clinician Investigators (YCIs), $1.5 M to 18 Van Wagenen Fellows (VWFs), and $5.1 M to 100 resident Research Fellowship Grant (RFG) awardees. Of all awardees, 73% have current academic appointments, and the mean ± SD number of publications and H-index were 71 ± 82 and 20 ± 15, respectively. The overall response rate to our survey was 70%, and these respondents became the cohort for our analysis. In total, respondents cumulatively obtained $776 M in post-NREF award grant funding, with the most common sources of funding including the National Institutes of Health ($327 M) and foundational awards ($306 M). The NREF impact ratios for awardees were $1:$381 for YCI, $1:$113 for VWF, and $1:$41 for resident RFG. Awardees with NREF projects in functional neurosurgery, pediatric neurosurgery, and neuro-oncology had the highest NREF impact ratios of $1:$194, $1:$185, and $1:$162, respectively. Of respondents, 9% became department chairs, 26% became full professors, 82% received at least 1 subsequent research grant, and 66% served as PI on a subsequent research grant after receiving their NREF awards. CONCLUSIONS: In-training and early-career neurosurgeons who were awarded NREF funding had significant success in acquiring subsequent grant support, research productivity, and achievements of academic rank. NREF grants provide a tremendous return on investment across various career stages and subspecialities. They also appeared to have a broader impact on trajectory of research and innovation within the field of neurosurgery.

Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation funding conversion to National Institutes of Health funding.

OBJECTIVE: The Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF) provides research support for in-training and early career neurosurgeon-scientists. To define the impact of this funding, the authors assessed the success of NREF awardees in obtaining subsequent National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. METHODS: NREF in-training (Research Fellowship [RF] for residents) and early career awards/awardees (Van Wagenen Fellowship [VW] and Young Clinician Investigator [YCI] award for neurosurgery faculty) were analyzed. NIH funding was defined by individual awardees using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting tool (1985-2014). RESULTS: Between 1985 and 2014, 207 unique awardees were supported by 218 NREF awards ($9.84 million [M] in funding), including 117 RF ($6.02 M), 32 VW ($1.68 M), and 69 YCI ($2.65 M) awards. Subspecialty funding included neuro-oncology (79 awards; 36% of RF, VW, and YCI awards), functional (53 awards; 24%), vascular (37 awards; 17%), spine (22 awards; 10%), pediatrics (18 awards; 8%), trauma/critical care (5 awards; 2%), and peripheral nerve (4 awards; 2%). These awardees went on to receive $353.90 M in NIH funding that resulted in an overall NREF/NIH funding ratio of 36.0:1 (in dollars). YCI awardees most frequently obtained later NIH funding (65%; $287.27 M), followed by VW (56%; $41.10 M) and RF (31%; $106.59 M) awardees. YCI awardees had the highest NREF/NIH funding ratio (108.6:1), followed by VW (24.4:1) and RF (17.7:1) awardees. Subspecialty awardees who went on to obtain NIH funding included vascular (19 awardees; 51% of vascular NREF awards), neuro-oncology (40 awardees; 51%), pediatrics (9 awardees; 50%), functional (25 awardees; 47%), peripheral nerve (1 awardees; 25%), trauma/critical care (2 awardees; 20%), and spine (2 awardees; 9%) awardees. Subspecialty NREF/NIH funding ratios were 56.2:1 for vascular, 53.0:1 for neuro-oncology, 47.6:1 for pediatrics, 34.1:1 for functional, 22.2:1 for trauma/critical care, 9.5:1 for peripheral nerve, and 0.4:1 for spine. Individuals with 2 NREF awards achieved a higher NREF/NIH funding ratio (83.3:1) compared to those with 1 award (29.1:1). CONCLUSIONS: In-training and early career NREF grant awardees are an excellent investment, as a significant portion of these awardees go on to obtain NIH funding. Moreover, there is a potent multiplicative impact of NREF funding converted to NIH funding that is related to award type and subspecialty.

Prevalence, management, and outcome of problem residents among neurosurgical training programs in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The challenging nature of neurosurgical residency necessitates that appropriate measures are taken by training programs to ensure that residents are properly progressing through their education. Residents who display a pattern of performance deficiencies must be identified and promptly addressed by faculty and program directors to ensure that resident training and patient care are not affected. While studies have been conducted to characterize these so-called "problem residents" in other specialties, no current data regarding the prevalence and management of such residents in neurosurgery exist. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate and the outcome of problem residents in US neurosurgical residency programs and identify predictive risk factors that portend a resident's departure from the program. METHODS: An anonymous nationwide survey was sent to all 108 neurosurgical training programs in the US to assess a 20-year history of overall attrition as well as the management course of problem residents, including the specific deficiencies of the resident, management strategies used by faculty, and the eventual outcome of each resident's training. RESULTS: Responses were received from 36 centers covering a total of 1573 residents, with the programs providing a mean 17.4 years' worth of data (95% CI 15.3-19.4 years). The mean prevalence of problem residents among training programs was 18.1% (95% CI 14.7%-21.6%). The most common deficiencies recognized by program directors were poor communication skills (59.9%), inefficiency in tasks (40.1%), and poor fund of medical knowledge (39.1%). The most common forms of program intervention were additional meetings to provide detailed feedback (93.9%), verbal warnings (78.7%), and formal written remediation plans (61.4%). Of the identified problem residents whose training status is known, 50% graduated or are on track to graduate, while the remaining 50% ultimately left their residency program for other endeavors. Of the 97 residents who departed their programs, 65% left voluntarily (most commonly for another specialty), and 35% were terminated (often ultimately training in another neurosurgery program). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the following 3 factors were independently associated with departure of a problem resident from their residency program: dishonesty (OR 3.23, 95% CI 1.67-6.253), poor fund of medical knowledge (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.47-4.40), and poor technical skill (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.37-4.12). CONCLUSIONS: The authors' findings represent the first study to characterize the nature of problem residents within neurosurgery. Identification of predictive risk factors, such as dishonesty, poor medical knowledge, and/or technical skill, may enable program directors to preemptively act and address such deficiencies in residents before departure from the program occurs. As half of the problem residents departed their programs, there remains an unmet need for further research regarding effective remediation strategies.

Impact of Hospital Caseload and Elective Admission on Outcomes After Extracranial-Intracranial Bypass Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Limited information exists evaluating the impact of hospital caseload and elective admission on outcomes after patients have undergone extracranial-intracranial (ECIC) bypass surgery. Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) for 2001-2014, we evaluated the impact of hospital caseload and elective admission on outcomes after bypass. METHODS: In an observational cohort study, weighted estimates were used to investigate the association of hospital caseload and elective admission on short-term outcomes after bypass surgery using multivariable regression techniques. RESULTS: Overall, 10,679 patients (mean age, 43.39 ± 19.63 years; 59% female) underwent bypass across 495 nonfederal U.S. hospitals. In multivariable models, patients undergoing bypass at high-volume centers were associated with decreased probability of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.70; P < 0.001), length of stay (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90; P < 0.001), postbypass neurologic complications (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.89; P = 0.007), venous thromboembolism (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97; P = 0.033), and acute renal failure (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.80; P = 0.007), and higher hospitalization cost (26.3% higher) compared with low-volume centers. Likewise, patients undergoing elective bypass were associated with decreased likelihood of mortality (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.59; P < 0.001), unfavorable discharge (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43-0.76; P < 0.001), length of stay (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.59-0.64; P < 0.001), venous thromboembolism (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.49-0.77; P < 0.001), acute renal failure (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.94; P = 0.022), wound complications (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.96; P = 0.028), and lower hospitalization cost (34.5% lower) compared with nonelective admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings serve as a framework for strengthening referral networks for complex cases to centers performing high volumes of cerebral bypass. Also, our study supports improved outcomes in select patients undergoing elective bypass procedures.

A novel fluorescent imaging technique for assessment of cerebral vasospasm after experimental subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Various techniques have been developed to study changes in the cerebral vasculature in numerous neuropathological processes including subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). One of the most widely employed techniques uses India ink-gelatin casting, which presents numerous challenges due to its high viscosity, rapid solidification, and its impact on immunohistochemical analysis. To overcome these limitations, we developed a novel technique for assessing cerebral vasospasm using cerebrovascular perfusion with ROX, SE (5-Carboxy-X-Rhodamine, Succinimidyl Ester), a fluorescent labeling dye. We found that ROX SE perfusion achieves excellent delineation of the cerebral vasculature, was qualitatively and quantitatively superior to India ink-gelatin casting for the assessment of cerebral vasospasm, permits outstanding immunohistochemical examination of non-vasospasm components of secondary brain injury, and is a more efficient and cost-effective experimental technique. ROX SE perfusion is therefore a novel and highly useful technique for studying cerebrovascular pathology following experimental SAH.

Detection and monitoring of vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia: a review and assessment of the literature.

Delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) after subarachnoid hemorrhage can be evaluated using clinical assessment, non-invasive and invasive techniques. An electronic literature search was conducted on English-language articles investigating DCI in human subjects with subarachnoid hemorrhage. A total of 31 relevant papers were identified evaluating the role of clinical assessment, transcranial Doppler, computed tomographic angiography, and computed tomographic perfusion. Clinical assessment by bedside evaluations is limited, especially in patients initially in poorer clinical condition or who are receiving sedative medication for whom deterioration may be more difficult to identify. Transcranial Doppler is a useful screening tool for middle cerebral artery vasospasm, with less utility in evaluating other intracranial vessels. Computed tomographic angiography correlates well with digital subtraction angiography. Computed tomographic perfusion may help predict DCI when used early or identify DCI when used later.

Symptomatic intracranial arterial disease: incidence, natural history, diagnosis, and management.

Symptomatic intracranial arterial disease is associated with a high rate of recurrent ischemic events. The management of this condition is controversial, with some advocating medical therapy as a sole means of treatment and others recommending endovascular therapy in addition to best medical management. In rare cases, surgical intervention is considered. A thorough review of the available literature was performed, and treatment recommendations based on these data are provided.