Does Spinal Cord Type Predict Intraoperative Neuro-Monitoring Alerts in Scoliosis Correction Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Operative and Radiologic Predictors.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: Predicting patient risk of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) alerts preoperatively can aid patient counselling and surgical planning. Sielatycki et al established an axial-MRI-based spinal cord classification system to predict risk of IONM alerts in scoliosis correction surgery. We aim to systematically review the literature on operative and radiologic factors associated with IONM alerts, including a novel spinal cord classification. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. A literature search identifying all observational studies comparing patients with and without IONM alerts was conducted. Suitable studies were included. Patient demographics, radiological measures and operative factors were collected. RESULTS: 11 studies were included including 3040 patients. Relative to type 3 cords, type 1 (OR = .03, CI = .01-.08, P < .00001), type 2 (OR = .08, CI = .03, P <.00001) and all non-type 3 cords (OR = .05, CI = .02-.16, P < .00001) were associated with significantly lower odds of IONM alerts. Significant radiographic measures for IONM alerts included coronal Cobb angle (MD = 10.66, CI = 5.77-15.56, P < .00001), sagittal Cobb angle (MD = 9.27, CI = 3.28-14.73, P = .0009), sagittal deformity angle ratio (SDAR) (MD = 2.76, CI = 1.57-3.96, P < .00001) and total deformity angle ratio (TDAR) (MD = 3.44, CI = 2.27-4.462, P < .00001). Clinically, estimated blood loss (MD = 274.13, CI = -240.03-788.28, P = .30), operation duration (MD = 50.79, CI = 20.58-81.00, P = .0010), number of levels fused (MD = .92, CI = .43-1.41, P = .0002) and number of vertebral levels resected (MD = .43, CI = .01-.84, P = .05) were significantly greater in IONM alert patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the relationship of operative and radiologic factors with IONM alerts.

Pancreas transplantation today: quo vadis?

Successful pancreas or islet transplantation is currently the only cure for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Since the first pancreas transplant in 1966, there have been various refinements of surgical technique along with improved immunosuppressive regimens, resulting in significantly improved outcomes, with contemporary research into graft monitoring and newer biomarkers, potentially lengthening graft survival rates further. Patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus who are eligible for pancreas or islet transplantation represent a select group, the tip of the iceberg for a significant global diabetes disease burden. In the last 50 years, there have been quantum advances in alternative technologies in diabetes therapy, both experimental and translational. Further development and improved access are required to treat the larger proportion of people suffering from diabetes. Emerging stem cell therapy is still experimental whereas alternatives including automated insulin delivery systems and islet cell transplantation are already used in some countries. Whilst automated insulin delivery systems have increased in efficacy, they still do not achieve the near physiological control of blood sugar, which can be achieved by successful pancreas or islet transplantation. This state-of-the-art review provides a summary of pancreas and islet transplantation to its current place in diabetes therapy, along with alternative and future therapies, including the obstacles associated with the dissemination of these new therapies. With the advent of these modern cellular and technological advances, this review addresses the question: are we entering an era where whole organ pancreas transplantation could be replaced entirely by modern technological advances in diabetes therapy?

Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Freehand Fluoroscopy-Guided Percutaneous Screw Fixation in Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Robotic-assisted navigation for percutaneous femoral neck fracture fixation is a new technology that has shown enhanced intraoperative and postoperative outcomes compared to the conventional freehand fluoroscopy-guided technique. The authors aim to compare robot-assisted femoral neck fracture fixation to conventional freehand fluoroscopy-guided repair. Electronic databases were searched, identifying all observational studies comparing outcomes of both groups. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The primary outcomes included operative duration (minutes), intraoperative bleeding (mL), fluoroscopy exposure, and frequency of intraoperative drilling. The secondary outcomes included Harris scores, healing rate and time, screw accuracy, and postoperative complications. Seven observational studies were identified, enrolling 506 patients. There was a significant difference between the robot-assisted and conventional groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss (mean difference (MD) = -18.83, p ≤ 0.05), fluoroscopy exposure (MD = -1.81, p ≤ 0.05), and intraoperative drilling frequency (MD = -7.35, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in operative duration between the groups (MD = -0.21, p = 0.66). Most secondary outcomes were improved in the robot-assisted group. Overall, robot-assisted fixation was superior in terms of safety and efficacy.