No abstract

OBJECTIVETelemedicine has rapidly expanded in the recent years as technologies have afforded healthcare practitioners the ability to diagnose and treat patients remotely. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, nonessential clinical visits were greatly limited, and much of the outpatient neurosurgical practice at the authors’ institution was shifted quickly to telehealth. Although there are prior data suggesting that the use of telemedicine is satisfactory in other surgical fields, data in neurosurgery are limited. This study aimed to investigate both patient and provider satisfaction with telemedicine and its strengths and limitations in outpatient neurosurgery visits.METHODSThis quality improvement study was designed to analyze provider and patient satisfaction with telemedicine consultations in an outpatient neurosurgery clinic setting at a tertiary care, large-volume, academic center. The authors designed an 11-question survey for neurosurgical providers and a 13-question survey for patients using both closed 5-point Likert scale responses and multiple choice responses. The questionnaires were administered to patients and providers during the period when the clinic restricted in-person visits. At the conclusion of the study, the overall data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively.RESULTSDuring the study period, 607 surveys were sent out to patients seen by telehealth at the authors’ academic center, and 122 responses were received. For the provider survey, 85 surveys were sent out to providers at the authors’ center and other academic centers, and 40 surveys were received. Ninety-two percent of patients agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with that particular telehealth visit. Eighty-eight percent of patients agreed that their telehealth visit was more convenient for them than an in-person visit, but only 36% of patients stated they would like their future visits to be telehealth. Sixty-three percent of providers agreed that telehealth visits were more convenient for them than in-person visits, and 85% of responding providers stated that they wished to incorporate telehealth into their future practice.CONCLUSIONSAlthough the authors’ transition to telehealth was both rapid and unexpected, most providers and patients reported positive experiences with their telemedicine visits and found telemedicine to be an effective form of ambulatory neurosurgical care. Not all patients preferred telemedicine visits over in-person visits, but the high satisfaction with telemedicine by both providers and patients is promising to the future expansion of telehealth in ambulatory neurosurgery.

No abstract

BackgroundAcademic physicians aim to provide clinical and surgical care to their patients while actively contributing to a growing body of scientific literature. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in procedural-based specialties across the United States witnessing a sharp decline in their clinical volume and surgical cases.ObjectiveTo assess the impact of COVID-19 on neurosurgical, stroke neurology, and neurointerventional academic productivity.MethodsThe study compared the neurosurgical, stroke neurology, and neurointerventional academic output during the pandemic lockdown with the same time period in previous years. Editors from a sample of neurosurgical, stroke neurology, and neurointerventional journals provided the total number of original manuscript submissions, broken down by months, from the year 2016 to 2020. Manuscript submission was used as a surrogate metric for academic productivity.Results8 journals were represented. The aggregated data from all eight journals as a whole showed that a combined average increase of 42.3% was observed on original submissions for 2020. As the average yearly percent increase using the 2016–2019 data for each journal exhibited a combined average increase of 11.2%, the rise in the yearly increase for 2020 in comparison was nearly fourfold. For the same journals in the same time period, the average percent of COVID-19 related publications from January to June of 2020 was 6.87%.ConclusionThere was a momentous increase in the number of original submissions for the year 2020, and its effects were uniformly experienced across all of our represented journals.

BackgroundThe Surpass flow diverter was developed to treat intracranial aneurysms not amenable to standard treatment. Indications for use allow placement in the internal carotid artery to the terminus, including the communicating artery segment.MethodsThe Surpass Intracranial Aneurysm Embolization System Pivotal Trial to Treat Large or Giant Wide Neck Aneurysms (SCENT) trial is an international, multicenter, prospective, non-randomized trial comparing the outcomes of Surpass flow diverter treatment with historic control designed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Surpass for the treatment of wide neck (≥4 mm) large or giant intracranial aneurysms ≥10 mm. The primary effectiveness endpoint is the percentage of subjects with 100% aneurysm occlusion without significant stenosis of the parent artery and without retreatment of the target aneurysm at 12 months. The primary safety endpoint is the percentage of subjects experiencing neurologic death or major ipsilateral stroke at 12 months. We report the effectiveness and safety of flow diversion in the subgroup of posterior communicating artery (PComA) aneurysms.ResultsOf the 180 patients treated, 38 harbored a PComA aneurysm. Mean aneurysm size was 12.2 mm and mean neck width was 4.8 mm. The mean number of Surpass devices used was 1.1 per procedure, with 94.7% of aneurysms treated with one flow diverter. The 12 month primary effectiveness rate was 73.7% (28/38). At 36 months, 68.4% (26/38) of aneurysms remained completely occluded. The 12 month major ipsilateral stroke or neurological death rate was 10.5%. No patients with PComA occlusion after flow diverter placement (54.5%) had clinical sequelae.ConclusionsSCENT demonstrated acceptable 12 month effectiveness of flow diversion in PComA aneurysms. Despite associated PComA occlusions in many cases, arterial occlusions were clinically silent.Trial registration numberURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01716117.