ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Survey. OBJECTIVES: To characterize national practices of and shortcomings surrounding intraoperative assessments of spinal alignment. METHODS: Spine surgeons in the US were surveyed to analyze their experience with assessing spinal alignment intraoperatively. RESULTS: 108 US spine surgeons from 77 surgical centers with an average of 19.2 + 8.8 years of surgical experience completed the survey. To assess alignment intraoperatively, 84% (91/108) use C-arm or spot radiographs, 40% (43/108) use full-length radiographs, and 20% utilize the T-bar (22/108). 88% of respondents' surgical centers (93/106) possessed a navigation camera and 63% of respondents (68/108) report using surgical navigation for 40% of their deformity cases on average. Reported deterrents for using current technology to assess alignment were workflow interruption (54%, 58/108), expense (33%, 36/108), and added radiation exposure (26%, 28/108). 87% of respondents (82/94) reported a need for improvement in current capabilities of making intraoperative assessments of spinal alignment. CONCLUSIONS: Corrective surgery for spinal deformity is a complex procedure that requires a high level of expertise to perform safely. The majority of surveyed surgeons primarily rely on radiographs for intraoperative assessments of alignment. Despite the majority of surveyed surgical practices possessing navigation cameras, they are utilized only for a minority of spinal deformity cases. With the majority of surveyed surgeons reporting a need for improvement in technology to assess spinal alignment intraoperatively, 3 of the top design considerations should include workflow interruption, expense, and radiation exposure.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and efficiency of a Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) graft preparation device, DescePrep, through measurement of graft viability, yield, and preparation time in both healthy and diabetic (high-risk) donor eyes. METHODS: Twenty nondiabetic and 10 diabetic donor corneas were processed using DescePrep, which standardizes the liquid bubble technique. Corneas were stained with trypan blue and then processed. Cell counts through specular microscopy, optical coherence tomography imaging, and slit-lamp analysis were used for the evaluation of graft separation and viability in 5 nondiabetic corneas. The remaining 25 corneas (15 nondiabetic and 10 diabetic) were evaluated for preparation success rate and processing time. Ten corneas (5 nondiabetic and 5 diabetic) were randomly selected for further evaluation of global cell loss through staining. RESULTS: Ninety-seven percent of corneas (29 of 30) were prepared successfully with DescePrep. The average preparation time was 2.83 ± 1.8 minutes. There was no significant difference in the time of preparation between the nondiabetic and diabetic groups (P = 0.077). The overall average cell death after processing was 7.9% ± 3.7% for all corneas. There was no significant difference in cell viability between diabetic and nondiabetic tissues after DescePrep processing (P = 0.769). CONCLUSIONS: DescePrep is a new DMEK preparation technique that can process both nondiabetic and diabetic donor corneas at high yields in minutes. High-yield preparation of diabetic corneas may offer eye banks access to a larger donor pool, which is important because the demand for DMEK grafts continues to rise worldwide.
