The effect of COVID-19 on pain control in patients with a neurostimulator in situ- a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: De-novo chronic neuropathic pain following COVID-19 is widely recognised. However, there are currently no published studies investigating the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on patients with pre-existing neuropathic pain who have required spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implantation. Here, the authors aimed to analyse outcomes in their institution's patients who had spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implantation or revision procedures to the system over a 5-year period. Specifically, the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients who contracted COVID-19 during the follow-up period were compared to the control group of patients who did not. METHOD: Patients included in this study had spinal cord stimulator implantation (de-novo and revision procedures) between 1 January 2017 and 31 January 2022, for neuropathic pain of any aetiology. Patients deemed eligible for the study were invited to participate in a telephone survey through which clinical outcome data were collected. Pain scores were assessed with a modified form of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). RESULTS: Of 91 patients, 48 (52.7%) had contracted COVID-19 by the time of the survey. Patients who contracted COVID-19 had significantly worse BPI scores in the 'Least pain' domain following their infection and at time of the survey, when compared to their score 6 months after the operation. 22.9% (n = 11) of the patients who contracted COVID-19 experienced a change in their symptoms following their infection. Within this sub-group, there was a statistically significant deterioration in BPI scores in 10/11 domains following their infection and in 2/11 domains at time of the survey. Worsening severity of COVID-19 symptoms was not associated with worse BPI scores. CONCLUSIONS: Infection with SARS-CoV-2, in a significant proportion of patients with an SCS in situ, causes at least a transient deterioration in pain control. Further prospective multicentre studies are indicated to establish the prevalence of this phenomenon.

Retrospective Review of Surgical Site Infections after Endoscopic Endonasal Sellar and Parasellar Surgery: Multicenter Quality Data from the North American Skull Base Society.

Introduction Transnasal access to the anterior skull base provides a minimally invasive approach for sellar and parasellar masses compared with its open counterparts. The unique microbiome of the sinonasal mucosa provides distinct challenges not encountered with other cranial approaches. The use of antibiotics in these cases has not been standardized, and data remain scarce regarding infectious outcomes. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis of shared quality data points for the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) for pituitary adenomas, along with other sellar and parasellar region masses that were included by participating institutions. Patient and operative characteristics, perioperative and postoperative antibiotic regimens and their durations, intraoperative and postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak, and onset of postoperative meningitis and sinusitis were compared. Results Fifteen institutions participated and provided 6 consecutive months' worth of case data. Five hundred ninety-three cases were included in the study, of which 564 were pituitary adenomectomies. The incidences of postoperative meningitis and sinusitis were low (0.67 and 2.87% for all pathologies, respectively; 0.35% meningitis for pituitary adenomas) and did not correlate with any specific antibiotic regimen. Immunocompromised status posed an increased odds of meningitis in pituitary adenomectomies (28.6, 95% confidence interval [1.72-474.4]). Conclusions The results show no clear benefit to postoperative antimicrobial use in EEA, with further larger studies needed.

Postoperative seizures in meningioma patients: improving patient selection for antiepileptic drug therapy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in meningioma patients. The aims of this study were to determine which factors predispose meningioma patients to developing perioperative seizures and to understand the impact of antiepileptic drugs. METHODS: Patients treated for a histologically-confirmed intracranial meningioma at the authors' institution between 2010 and 2015 were retrospectively examined. Clinical and imaging data were assessed. Multivariate analysis was performed using binary logistic regression. The effect of antiepileptic treatment was assessed using survival analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-three patients met the selection criteria; seizures were present in 68 preoperatively (24%) and in 48 patients (17%) following surgery. Of the 68 with preoperative seizures, 19 continued to have them, whereas de-novo seizures arose postoperatively in 29 seizure-naïve patients. Risk factors of postoperative seizures were convexity location (OR 2.05 [95% CI 1.07-3.98], p = 0.030), fronto-parietal location (OR 4.42 [95% CI 1.49-13.16], p = 0.007) and preoperative seizures (OR 2.65 [95% CI 1.37-5.24], p = 0.005). The two locations, in addition to the presence of midline shift on preoperative imaging (OR 4.15 [95% CI 1.54-11.24], p = 0.005), were significantly correlated with postoperative seizures in seizure-naïve patients. Antiepileptic treatment in patients with those risk factors reduced the possibility of seizures at any time point within the 1st year postoperatively by approximately 40%, although this did not meet statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic antiepileptic treatment might be warranted in seizure-naïve meningioma patients with ≥ 1 risk factor. High-quality randomised controlled trials are required to verify those factors and to define the role of antiepileptics in meningioma practice.