Comparable safety profile between neuro-oncology procedures involving stereotactic needle biopsy (SNB) followed by laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) and LITT alone procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Tissue diagnosis through stereotactic needle biopsy (SNB) is often needed prior to laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT). Whether these procedures should be performed in the same surgery or in separate settings remain unclear. As a first step to address this question, we assess safety profile of procedures involving LITT alone versus SNB + LITT. METHODS: Using International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes, we queried the National Readmissions Database (NRD, 2010-2018) for malignant brain tumor patients who underwent either (1) LITT alone or (2) elective LITT in combination with SNB (SNB + LITT). Survey regression methods were utilized. Additionally, the procedural outcome of LITT or SNB + LITT performed by the senior surgeon (2014-2022) were reviewed. RESULTS: During the study period, an estimated 678 malignant brain tumor patients underwent LITT alone versus 373 patients that underwent SNB + LITT. Patients undergoing LITT and SNB + LITT exhibited statistically comparable median lengths of hospital stay (IQR; LITT = 2 day [1, 3]; SNB + LITT = 1 day [1, 3]; p = 0.405) and likelihood of routine discharge (LITT = 73.5%; SNB + LITT = 81.1%; p = 0.068). The odds of 30-day medical or neurological readmissions were comparable between LITT and SNB + LITT treated patients (all p ≥ 0.793). In the single surgeon experience of 218 procedures performed over an eight year period (2014-2022), the complications (LITT = 3.9%; SNB + LITT = 2.6%, p = 0.709), discharge within 48 h (LITT = 84.5%; SNB + LITT = 87.8%; p = 0.556), routine discharge (LITT = 91.3%; SNB + LITT = 93.9%; p = 0.604), and unplanned 30-day readmission (LITT = 3.9%; SNB + LITT = 1.7%; p = 0.423) were similarly comparable between LITT and SNB + LITT. CONCLUSION: The length of hospital stay, the likelihood of routine discharge, and 30-day readmission for malignant brain tumor patients who underwent LITT and SNB + LITT were comparable.

Rates of operative intervention for infection after synthetic or autologous cranioplasty: a National Readmissions Database analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize the clinical utilization and associated charges of autologous bone flap (ABF) versus synthetic flap (SF) cranioplasty and to characterize the postoperative infection risk of SF versus ABF using the National Readmissions Database (NRD). METHODS: The authors used the publicly available NRD to identify index hospitalizations from October 2015 to December 2018 involving elective ABF or SF cranioplasty after traumatic brain injury (TBI) or stroke. Subsequent readmissions were further characterized if patients underwent neurosurgical intervention for treatment of infection or suspected infection. Survey Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess risk of readmission. RESULTS: An estimated 2295 SF and 2072 ABF cranioplasties were performed from October 2015 to December 2018 in the United States. While the total number of cranioplasty operations decreased during the study period, the proportion of cranioplasties utilizing SF increased (p < 0.001), particularly in male patients (p = 0.011) and those with TBI (vs stroke, p = 0.012). The median total hospital charge for SF cranioplasty was $31,200 more costly than ABF cranioplasty (p < 0.001). Of all first-time readmissions, 20% involved surgical treatment for infectious reasons. Overall, 122 SF patients (5.3%) underwent surgical treatment of infection compared with 70 ABF patients (3.4%) on readmission. After accounting for confounders using a multivariable Cox model, female patients (vs male, p = 0.003), those discharged nonroutinely (vs discharge to home or self-care, p < 0.001), and patients who underwent SF cranioplasty (vs ABF, p = 0.011) were more likely to be readmitted for reoperation. Patients undergoing cranioplasty during more recent years (e.g., 2018 vs 2015) were less likely to be readmitted for reoperation because of infection (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: SFs are increasingly replacing ABFs as the material of choice for cranioplasty, despite their association with increased hospital charges. Female sex, nonroutine discharge, and SF cranioplasty are associated with increased risk for reoperation after cranioplasty.

Readmission risk of malignant brain tumor patients undergoing laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) and stereotactic needle biopsy (SNB): a covariate balancing weights analysis of the National Readmissions Database (NRD).

PURPOSE: Despite procedural similarities between laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) and stereotactic needle biopsy (SNB), LITT induces delayed, pro-inflammatory responses not associated with SNB that may increase the risk of readmission within 30- or 90- days. Here, we explore this hypothesis. METHODS: We queried the National Readmissions Database (NRD, 2010-18) for malignant brain tumor patients who underwent elective LITT or SNB using International Classification of Diseases codes. Readmissions were defined as non-elective inpatient hospitalizations. Survey regression methods and a weighted analysis were utilized to adjust for demographic and clinical differences between LITT and SNB cohorts. RESULTS: During the study period, an estimated 685 malignant brain patients underwent elective LITT and 15,177 underwent elective SNB. Patients undergoing LITT and SNB exhibited comparable median lengths of hospital stay [IQR; LITT = 2 (1, 3); SNB = 1 (1, 2); p = 0.820]. Likelihood of routine discharge was not significantly different between the two procedures (p = 0.263). No significant differences were observed in the odds of 30- or 90-day unplanned readmission between the LITT and SNB cohorts after multivariable adjustment (all p ≥ 0.177). The covariate balancing weighted analysis confirmed comparable 30 or 90-day readmission risk between LITT and SNB treated patients (all p ≥ 0.201). CONCLUSION: The likelihood of 30- and 90-day readmission for malignant brain tumor patients who underwent LITT or SNB are comparable, supporting the safety profile of LITT as therapy for malignant brain cancers.

Persistent Racial Disparities in Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson's Disease.

We sought to determine whether racial and socioeconomic disparities in the utilization of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson's disease (PD) have improved over time. We examined DBS utilization and analyzed factors associated with placement of DBS. The odds of DBS placement increased across the study period, whereas White patients with PD were 5 times more likely than Black patients to undergo DBS. Individuals, regardless of racial background, with 2 or more comorbidities were 14 times less likely to undergo DBS. Privately insured patients were 1.6 times more likely to undergo DBS. Despite increasing DBS utilization, significant disparities persist in access to DBS. ANN NEUROL 2022;92:246-254.

Pattern of technology diffusion in the adoption of stereotactic laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) in neuro-oncology.

PURPOSE: Understanding factors that influence technology diffusion is central to clinical translation of novel therapies. We characterized the pattern of adoption for laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT), also known as stereotactic laser ablation (SLA), in neuro-oncology using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. METHODS: We identified patients age ≥ 18 in the NIS (2012-2018) with a diagnosis of primary or metastatic brain tumor that underwent LITT or craniotomy. We compared characteristics and outcomes for patients that underwent these procedures. RESULTS: LITT utilization increased ~ 400% relative to craniotomy during the study period. Despite this increase, the total number of LITT procedures performed for brain tumor was < 1% of craniotomy. After adjusting for this time trend, LITT patients were less likely to have > 2 comorbidities (OR 0.64, CI95 0.51-0.79) or to be older (OR 0.92, CI95 0.86-0.99) and more likely to be female (OR 1.35, CI95 1.08-1.69), Caucasian compared to Black (OR 1.94, CI95 1.12-3.36), and covered by private insurance compared to Medicare or Medicaid (OR 1.38, CI95 1.09-1.74). LITT hospital stays were 50% shorter than craniotomy (IRR 0.52, CI95 0.45-0.61). However, charges related to the procedures were comparable between LITT and craniotomy ($1397 greater for LITT, CI95 $-5790 to $8584). CONCLUSION: For neuro-oncology indications, LITT utilization increased ~ 400% relative to craniotomy. Relative to craniotomy-treated patients, LITT-treated patients were likelier to be young, female, non-Black race, covered by private insurance, or with < 2 comorbidities. While the total hospital charges were comparable, LITT was associated with a shorter hospitalization relative to craniotomy.

A Proof of Concept for Applying the Radicchi Index (hf) to Compare Academic Productivity and Scientific Impact Among Medical Specialties.

Many indices have been developed to assess the impact of scientific publications by investigators, disciplines, and institutions. The h-index has emerged as a leading tool in the assessment of the productivity of authors. Differences in publication and citation opportunity among specialties create inappropriate conclusions when the h-index is used to compare authors across different disciplines. An alternative, the Radicchi index, hf, has been proposed to assess the impact of publications across disciplines. We curated a database of all articles published from 2002 to 2015 from the 3 highest impact factor medical journals: New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Lancet, and the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA). With this database, articles were categorized into medical subspecialties. We calculated the respective h-index and Radicchi index of each specialty. We found that the Radicchi index eliminated variability associated with publication and citation opportunity between different specialties when compared to the h-index. The Radicchi index is a useful measure of scientific impact and productivity that advances the h-index by allowing interspecialty comparisons. There remains a need to define a researcher's specialty designation especially if he/she conducts multidisciplinary research.

Creation of an External Ventricular Drain Registry from a Quality Improvement Project.

BACKGROUND: External ventricular drains (EVDs) are a serious source of morbidity and mortality. Data for interventions proven to reduce risk of infections are lacking. Single-center studies are limited in studying procedures that mitigate infection, but bundled protocols have demonstrated utility. A collaborative EVD registry was designed to facilitate local quality improvement projects to be implemented at any location using standardized data collection instruments through resident collaboration to reduce and study EVD infection and prevention. METHODS: A bundled protocol and comprehensive implementation program were developed as a quality improvement project to reduce ventriculostomy-associated infections. Standardized data collection forms were created for multi-institutional participation in an EVD registry. Retrospective and prospective patient data were documented in an electronic procedural registry, which was designed to capture variation among multiple institutions. RESULTS: Two infections were found in 1924 EVD-days before protocol implementation; no infections were found in 700 EVD-days after protocol implementation. Baseline epidemiology of EVDs was calculated in preparation for comparison. A resident-driven EVD consortium, now with 5 other member institutions, was founded to collect data for an EVD registry fed by individual site quality improvement initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: The ventriculostomy-associated infection rate at the University of Minnesota is low compared with the literature. Rationally bundled protocols have mounting evidence but do not allow for identifying effective individual components. Through the registry described here, others can join the EVD consortium to contribute data to facilitate comparative effectiveness research with minimal investment.