The endaural subtemporal keyhole: a novel minimally invasive approach to the middle cranial fossa.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a minimally invasive approach to the middle cranial fossa using a novel endaural keyhole. METHODS: The charts of all patients who underwent this novel minimally invasive approach to the middle cranial fossa were retrospectively reviewed. In addition, cadaveric dissection was performed to demonstrate the feasibility of the endaural keyhole to the middle cranial fossa. RESULTS: Six patients (5 female and 1 male; age range 47-77 years) who underwent craniotomy for CSF leak (n = 3), intracerebral hematoma evacuation (n = 2), and tumor resection (n = 1) via the endaural subtemporal approach were identified. There were no approach-related complications noted. Representative imaging from cadaveric dissection is provided with a stepwise discussion of the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The endaural subtemporal keyhole craniotomy provides a novel approach to middle fossa skull base pathology, as well as a minimally invasive approach to intra-axial pathology of the temporal lobe and basal ganglia. Further research is needed to establish the limitations and potential complications of this novel approach.

Does the Number of Levels of Decompression Have an Impact on the Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Retrospective Study in Single-Level Fused Patients.

Introduction The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) 2014 lumbar fusion guidelines for stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) support surgical decompression and fusion as an effective treatment option for symptomatic stenosis associated with DS. The association between the number of levels decompressed in patients with single-level fusion and clinical outcomes has never been published. Methods A retrospective analysis of a single-center, prospectively collected database was performed on 77 patients to compare the effect of the number of decompression levels in patients that received single-level fusion surgery. A total of 77 patients met the criteria. Group one had one level decompressed, group two had two levels decompressed, and group three had three or four levels decompressed. All patients received lumbar fusion surgery at a single spinal level. Outcomes at six months included: Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) (ΔODI ≥ 10 points); Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) (ΔODI ≥ 5); no MCID (ΔODI <5 points). Student's t-tests, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and post hoc comparison using unpaired two-tailed student's t-test with Holm-Bonferroni correction were performed. p -values were ranked from smallest to largest, and alpha level adjustments were made.  Results A sub-analysis of each group's clinical outcomes showed that patients with two levels decompressed reached greater clinical outcomes. SCB was obtained by approximately 60% (group one: 12.5% vs. group three: 40%) of the patients. A total of 77.6% (38/49) achieved MCID (group one: 62.5% vs. group three: 55%). Single-level fused patients with two levels of decompression showed an improvement of 48% from baseline ODI, as opposed to group one: 17.85% and group three: 21.1%. Patients belonging to group two showed the lowest rate of no improvement. Baseline ODI scores were similar upon presentation (p=0.46), and the difference was found among groups after six months of follow-up (p=0.009). Post hoc comparison showed statistical significance in the comparison between group two and group three (p=0.009, alpha value: 0.017). Conclusion The addition of more than two levels of decompression to single-level fused patients might be associated with poor clinical outcomes and spinal instability.

Independent Predictors of Revision Lumbar Fusion Outcomes and the Impact of Spine Surgeon Variability: Does It Matter Whether the Primary Surgeon Revises?

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information regarding treatment strategies and variables affecting outcomes of revision lumbar fusions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of primary vs different surgeon on functional outcomes of revisions. METHODS: All elective lumbar fusion revisions, March 2018 to August 2019, were retrospectively categorized as performed by the same or different surgeon who performed the primary surgery. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and clinical variables were collected. Multiple logistic regression identified multivariable-adjusted odds ratio (OR) of independent variables analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 130 cases, 117 (90%) had complete data. There was a slight difference in age in the same (median: 59; interquartile range [IQR], 54-66) and different surgeon (median: 67; IQR, 56-72) groups (P = .02); all other demographic variables were not significantly different (P > .05). Revision surgery with a different surgeon had an ODI improvement (median: 8; IQR, 2-14) greater than revisions performed by the same surgeon (median: 1.5; IQR, -3 to 10) (P < .01). Revisions who achieved minimum clinically important difference (MCID) performed by different surgeon (59.7%) were also significantly greater than the ones performed by the same surgeon (40%) (P = .042). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a different surgeon revising (OR, 2.37; [CI]: 1.007-5.575, P = .04) was an independent predictor of MCID achievement, each additional 2 years beyond the last surgery conferred a 2.38 ([CI]: 1.36-4.14, P < .01) times greater odds of MCID achievement, and the anterior lumbar interbody fusion approach decreased the chance of achieving MCID (OR, 0.19; [CI]: 0.04-0.861, P = .03). CONCLUSION: All revision lumbar spinal fusion approaches may not achieve the same outcomes. This analysis suggests that revision surgeries may have better outcomes when performed by a different surgeon.

Clinical outcomes in revision lumbar spine fusions: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared primary lumbar spine fusions with revision fusions by using patient Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores to evaluate the impact of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based medicine (EBM) lumbar fusion indications on patient-reported outcome measures of revision surgeries. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective observational cohort of patients who underwent elective lumbar fusion between January 2018 and December 2019 at a single quaternary spine surgery service and had a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. A prospective quality improvement database was constructed that included the data from all elective lumbar spine surgeries, which were categorized prospectively as primary or revision surgeries and EBM-concordant or EBM-discordant revision surgeries based on the NASS coverage EBM policy. In total, 309 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The ODIs of all groups (primary, revision, revision EBM concordant, and revision EBM discordant) were statistically compared. Differences in frequencies between cohorts were evaluated using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. The unpaired 2-tailed Student t-test and the Mann-Whitney U-test for nonparametric data were used to compare continuous variables. Logistic regression was performed to determine the associations between independent variables (surgery status and NASS criteria indications) and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Primary lumbar fusions were significantly associated with improved functional outcomes compared with revisions, as evidenced by ODI scores (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.16-2.95 to achieve a minimal clinically important difference, p = 0.01). The percentage of patients whose functional status had declined at the 6-month postoperative evaluation was significantly higher in patients who had undergone a revision surgery than in those who underwent a primary surgery (23% vs 12.3%, respectively). An increase in ODI score, indicating worse clinical outcome after surgery, was greater in patients who underwent revision procedures (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.17-3.91, p = 0.0014). Patients who underwent EBM-concordant revision surgery had significantly improved mean ODI scores compared with those who underwent EBM-discordant revision surgery (7.02 ± 5.57 vs -4.6 ± 6.54, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this prospective quality improvement program investigation illustrate that outcomes of primary lumbar fusions were superior to outcomes of revisions. However, revision procedures that met EBM guidelines were associated with greater improvements in ODI scores, which indicates that the use of defined EBM guideline criteria for reoperation can improve clinical outcomes of revision lumbar fusions.

Endoscopic Endonasal Approach for Olfactory Groove Meningiomas: Operative Technique and Nuances.

Olfactory groove meningiomas represent approximately 10% of all intracranial meningiomas. Because these tumors originate at the ventral skull base, the endonasal route provides direct access to the tumor blood supply for early devascularization and removal of the underlying hyperostotic bone at the cranial base. In carefully selected patients, these tumors can be totally removed without additional brain retraction or manipulation. In this report, we describe the surgical technique and operative nuances for removal of olfactory groove meningiomas using the endoscopic endonasal approach, and also discuss the indications, limitations, complication avoidance and management, and postoperative care.