A Review of Preoperative Embolization Effectiveness in Patients With Arteriovenous Malformations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Preoperative embolization of arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) remains controversial. This study sought to analyze the cost-effectiveness of preoperative embolization of AVMs. METHODS: Patients who underwent AVM resection at a single institute (January 1, 2015-December 31, 2020) were analyzed. Patients with preoperative embolization (embolization cohort) were compared with those without preoperative embolization (nonembolization cohort). Cost-effectiveness score (CE) was the primary outcome of interest and was determined by dividing the total 1-year cost by effectiveness, which was derived from a validated preoperative to last follow-up change in the modified Rankin Scale utility score. A lower CE signifies a more cost-effective treatment strategy. RESULTS: Of 188 patients, 88 (47%) underwent preoperative embolization. The mean (SD) total cost was higher in the embolization group than in the nonembolization group ($117 594 [$102 295] vs $84 348 [$82 326]; P < .001). The mean (SD) CE was higher in the embolization cohort ($336 476 [$1 303 842]) than in the nonembolization cohort ($100 237 [$246 255]; P < .001). Among patients with Spetzler-Martin (SM) grade I and II AVMs, the mean (SD) CE was higher in the embolization (n = 40) than in the nonembolization (n = 72) cohort ($164 950 [$348 286] vs $69 021 [$114 938]; P = .004). Among patients with SM grade III AVMs, the mean (SD) CE was lower in the embolization (n = 33) than in the nonembolization (n = 25) cohort ($151 577 [$219 130] vs $189 195 [$446 335]; P = .006). The mean (SD) CE was not significantly different between cohorts among patients with higher-grade AVMs (embolization cohort [n = 3] vs nonembolization cohort [n = 15]: $503 639 [$776 492] vs $2 048 419 [$4 794 758]; P = .49). The mean CE for embolized SM grade III aneurysms was nonsignificant in the ruptured group; however, for the unruptured group, CE was significantly higher in the embolization cohort (n = 26; $160 871 [$240 535]) relative to the nonembolization cohort (n = 15; $108 152 [$166 446]) ( P = .006). CONCLUSION: Preoperative embolization was cost-effective for patients with SM grade III AVMs but not for patients with lower-grade AVMs.

Migraine and the Gender Divide.

Migraine is a global neurologic disease that is highly prevalent, especially in women. Studies have observed a predisposition for the development of migraine in women, although the mechanisms involved have yet to be fully elucidated. This review aimed to summarize the recent evidence regarding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of migraine and highlight key sex differences. We also identify gaps in care for both women and men living with migraine and discuss the presence of migraine-related stigma and how this may impact the efficacy of clinical care.

Comprehensive Management of Pressure Injury: A Review.

Pressure injuries (PIs) are a spectrum of localized tissue destruction that develops most often at a bony prominence. PIs are the result of a combination of extrinsic (eg, pressure, shear, friction, and moisture) and intrinsic (nutritional status, spasticity, decreased sensation, and vascular disease) factors. Given their complex etiology, management of PIs requires a multidisciplinary approach from a team of health care professionals. After addressing both extrinsic and intrinsic factors, local wound care is generally recommended for stages 1 to 2 PIs and surgical intervention for stages 3 to 4.

Robotics in neurosurgery: Current prevalence and future directions.

Background: The first instance of a robotic-assisted surgery occurred in neurosurgery; however, it is now more common in other fields such as urology and gynecology. This study aims to characterize the prevalence of robotic surgery among current neurosurgery programs as well as identify trends in clinical trials pertaining to robotic neurosurgery. Methods: Each institution's website was analyzed for the mention of a robotic neurosurgery program and procedures. The future potential of robotics in neurosurgery was assessed by searching for current clinical trials pertaining to neurosurgical robotic surgery. Results: Of the top 100 programs, 30 offer robotic cranial and 40 offer robotic spinal surgery. No significant differences were observed with robotic surgical offerings between geographic regions in the US. Larger programs (faculty size 16 or over) had 20 of the 30 robotic cranial programs (66.6%), whereas 21 of the 40 robotic spinal programs (52.5%) were at larger programs. An initial search of clinical trials revealed 223 studies, of which only 13 pertained to robotic neurosurgery. Spinal fixation was the most common intervention (six studies), followed by Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS, two studies), Cochlear implants (two studies), laser ablation (LITT, one study), and endovascular embolization (one study). Most studies had industry sponsors (9/13 studies), while only five studies had hospital sponsors. Conclusion: Robotic neurosurgery is still in its infancy with less than half of the top programs offering robotic procedures. Future directions for robotics in neurosurgery appear to be focused on increased automation of stereotactic procedures such as DBS and LITT and robot-assisted spinal surgery.