Should asymptomatic cervical stenosis be treated in the setting of progressive thoracic myelopathy? A systematic review of the literature.

PURPOSE: Unlike tandem stenosis of the cervical and lumbar spine, tandem cervical and thoracic stenosis (TCTS) of the spine is less common, and the approach and order of intervention are controversial. We aim to review the literature to evaluate the incidence and interventions for patients with cervical and thoracic stenosis. We provide illustrative cases to demonstrate that thoracic myelopathy in the setting of asymptomatic cervical stenosis can be treated safely. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature through electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was performed to present the current literature that evaluates TCTS as it relates to incidence and surgical interventions. We also present two cases of patients undergoing operative intervention for thoracic myelopathy in the setting of concurrent cervical stenosis. RESULTS: A total of 26 English original studies and case reports were identified. Nine studies evaluated the incidence of TCTS. 20 studies with a total of 168 patients with TCTS presented information on surgical intervention options. There is an overall aggregate incidence of 11.6% (530/4751) based on incidence studies. 165 patients underwent thoracic intervention. Of these patients, 63 patients underwent cervical intervention first, 29 underwent thoracic intervention first, and 73 underwent simultaneous, single-stage intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with myelopathy, both cervical and thoracic spine should be evaluated for TCTS. Order of operative intervention is tailored to clinical and radiographic information. In cases of thoracic myelopathy with asymptomatic cervical stenosis, thoracic intervention can be pursued with precautions to prevent further cervical cord injury.

Perioperative Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Incidence and Outcomes in Neurosurgical Patients at Two Tertiary Care Centers in Washington, DC, During a Pandemic: A 6-Month Follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to affect all aspects of health care delivery, and neurosurgical practices are not immune to its impact. We aimed to evaluate neurosurgical practice patterns as well as the perioperative incidence of COVID-19 in neurosurgical patients and their outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of neurosurgical and neurointerventional cases at 2 tertiary centers during the first 3 months of the first peak of COVID-19 pandemic (March 8 to June 8) as well as following 3 months (post-peak pandemic; June 9 to September 9) was performed. Baseline characteristics, perioperative COVID-19 test results, modified Medically Necessary, Time-Sensitive (mMeNTS) score, and outcome measures were compared between COVID-19-positive and-negative patients through bivariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: In total, 652 neurosurgical and 217 neurointerventional cases were performed during post-peak pandemic period. Cervical spine, lumbar spine, functional/pain, cranioplasty, and cerebral angiogram cases were significantly increased in the postpandemic period. There was a 2.9% (35/1197) positivity rate for COVID-19 testing overall and 3.6% (13/363) positivity rate postoperatively. Age, mMeNTS score, complications, length of stay, case acuity, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, and disposition were significantly different between COVID-19-positive and-negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: A significant increase in elective case volume during the post-peak pandemic period is feasible with low and acceptable incidence of COVID-19 in neurosurgical patients. COVID-19-positive patients were younger, less likely to undergo elective procedures, had increased length of stay, had more complications, and were discharged to a location other than home. The mMeNTS score plays a role in decision-making for scheduling elective cases.

Outcomes of Surgical Evacuation of Chronic Subdural Hematoma in the Aged: Institutional Experience and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical intervention for chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) in the elderly population remains a clinical challenge given that associated morbidity and outcomes do not always equate radiographic success with clinical success. Our objective was to compare outcome measures of 2 age groups of patients undergoing surgical intervention for cSDH evacuation and to perform a systematic review of the literature related to this topic. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of adult patients undergoing surgical evacuation of cSDH at our institution was performed. Primary outcome measures of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at discharge and 3 months were assessed. In addition, a systematic search was performed to collect all relevant studies addressing outcomes after surgical intervention in aged patients with cSDH. RESULTS: There were 72 patients in the younger cohort (<70 years) and 113 patients in the aged cohort (≥70 years). Multivariate analysis showed significant association between age and higher mRS score at discharge and 3 months follow-up. There were also significant differences in length of stay and disposition between the 2 groups. Twenty-one studies were reviewed, and 11 studies were included in a meta-analysis of recurrence rates between studied age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The aged cohort had worse outcomes than the younger cohort as determined by mRS score at discharge and 3 months. A systematic review of outcomes is provided with limited meta-analysis because of the heterogenous nature of outcome reporting and the observational design of previous studies. Further studies with standardized reporting and long-term follow-up are warranted to further study outcomes in this increasing population.

Case Volumes and Perioperative Coronavirus Disease 2019 Incidence in Neurosurgical Patients During a Pandemic: Experiences at Two Tertiary Care Centers in Washington, DC.

OBJECTIVE: The true incidence of perioperative coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has not been well elucidated in neurosurgical studies. We reviewed the effects of the pandemic on the neurosurgical case volume to study the incidence of COVID-19 in patients undergoing these procedures during the perioperative period and compared the characteristics and outcomes of this group to those of patients without COVID-19. METHODS: The neurosurgical and neurointerventional procedures at 2 tertiary care centers during the pandemic were reviewed. The case volume, type, and acuity were compared to those during the same period in 2019. The perioperative COVID-19 tests and results were evaluated to obtain the incidence. The baseline characteristics, including a modified Medically Necessary Time Sensitive (mMeNTS) score, and outcome measures were compared between those with and without COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 405 cases were reviewed, and a significant decrease was found in total spine, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and functional/pain cases. No significant differences were found in the number of cranial or neurointerventional cases. Of the 334 patients tested, 18 (5.4%) had tested positive for COVID-19. Five of these patients were diagnosed postoperatively. The mMeNTS score, complications, and case acuity were significantly different between the patients with and without COVID-19. CONCLUSION: A small, but real, risk exists of perioperative COVID-19 in neurosurgical patients, and those patients have tended to have a greater complication rate. Use of the mMeNTS score might play a role in decision making for scheduling elective cases. Further studies are warranted to develop risk stratification and validate the incidence.