The longitudinal impact of COVID-19 pandemic on neurosurgical practice.

OBJECTIVE: This observational cross-sectional multicenter study aimed to evaluate the longitudinal impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on neurosurgical practice. METHODS: We included 29 participating neurosurgeons in centers from all geographical regions in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The study period, which was between March 5, 2020 and May 20, 2020, was divided into three equal periods to determine the longitudinal effect of COVID-19 measures on neurosurgical practice over time. RESULTS: During the 11-week study period, 474 neurosurgical interventions were performed. The median number of neurosurgical procedures per day was 5.5 (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.5-8). The number of cases declined from 72 in the first week and plateaued at the 30's range in subsequent weeks. The most and least number of performed procedures were oncology (129 [27.2 %]) and functional procedures (6 [1.3 %]), respectively. Emergency (Priority 1) cases were more frequent than non-urgent (Priority 4) cases (178 [37.6 %] vs. 74 [15.6 %], respectively). In our series, there were three positive COVID-19 cases. There was a significant among-period difference in the length of hospital stay, which dropped from a median stay of 7 days (IQR: 4-18) to 6 (IQR: 3-13) to 5 days (IQR: 2-8). There was no significant among-period difference with respect to institution type, complications, or mortality. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that the COVID-19 pandemic decreased the number of procedures performed in neurosurgery practice. The load of emergency neurosurgery procedures did not change throughout the three periods, which reflects the need to designate ample resources to cover emergencies. Notably, with strict screening for COVID -19 infections, neurosurgical procedures could be safely performed during the early pandemic phase. We recommend to restart performing neurosurgical procedures once the pandemic gets stabilized to avoid possible post pandemic health-care system intolerable overload.

Neurosurgical Procedures and Safety During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case-Control Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: Quantitative documentation of the effects of outbreaks, including the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, is limited in neurosurgery. Our study aimed to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on neurosurgical practice and to determine whether surgical procedures are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. METHODS: A multicenter case-control study was conducted, involving patients who underwent neurosurgical intervention in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during 2 periods: pre-COVID-19 and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The surgical intervention data evaluated included diagnostic category, case priority, complications, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 850 procedures were included, 36% during COVID-19. The median number of procedures per day was significantly lower during the COVID-19 period (5.5 cases) than during the pre-COVID-19 period (12 cases; P < 0.0001). Complications, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality did not differ during the pandemic. In a multivariate analysis comparing both periods, case priority levels 1 (immediate) (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-2.67), 1 (1-24 h) (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.41), and 4 (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19-0.42) showed significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: During the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall number of neurosurgical procedures declined, but the load of emergency procedures remained the same, thus highlighting the need to allocate sufficient resources for emergencies. More importantly, performing neurosurgical procedures during the pandemic in regions with limited effects of the outbreak on the health care system was safe. Our findings may aid in developing guidelines for acute and long-term care during pandemics in surgical subspecialties.

The effect of surgical level on self-reported clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: L4-L5 versus L5-S1.

OBJECTIVE: The anatomic and biomechanical aspects of the L5-S1 level present unique operative challenges compared with the L4-L5 level. However, it has not been determined if self-reported outcomes and complications are different between patients treated with a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at these specific levels. METHODS: There were 36 consecutive patients identified who were treated with a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedure. Surgical indications included spondylolisthesis (grade 1 or 2) and degenerative disk disease with associated clinical symptoms. Patients completed a visual analog scale (VAS) for their back and leg and Oswestry Disability Index preoperatively and postoperatively. Outcomes were compared between patients with L4-L5 involvement and patients with L5-S1 involvement. In all patients, fusion was evaluated by dynamic view flexion and extension views at 1 year. In all patients with indeterminate results or incomplete imaging, computed tomography was performed to evaluate for bridging bone and stable hardware positioning. RESULTS: The surgical indications between the 2 groups were similar (χ(2) = 0.089, df = 2, P = 0.956). There was no significant difference in mean operating time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay (P = 0.937, 0.627, and 0.587). There was no significant difference in the long-term postoperative questionnaire results (P = 0.819 for VAS [back], 0.626 for VAS [leg], and 0.962 for Oswestry Disability Index) or the mean preoperative to postoperative change in Cobb angle (P = 0.626) between the 2 groups. Two complications, one in each group, were a rash from an antibiotic and postoperative nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in biomechanics and unique anatomic challenges at the L5-S1 interspace, there is no difference in self-reported outcomes for patients treated with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the L4-L5 level compared with the L5-S1 level.