BackgroundEmergence of the novel corona virus (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2) in December 2019 has led to the COVID-19 pandemic. The extent of COVID-19 involvement in the central nervous system is not well established, and the presence or the absence of SARS-CoV-2 particles in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is a topic of debate.Case descriptionWe present two patients with COVID-19 and concurrent neurological symptoms. Our first patient is a 31-year-old man who had flu-like symptoms due to COVID-19 and later developed an acute-onset severe headache and loss of consciousness and was diagnosed with a Hunt and Hess grade 3 subarachnoid haemorrhage from a ruptured aneurysm. Our second patient is a 62-year-old woman who had an ischaemic stroke with massive haemorrhagic conversion requiring a decompressive hemicraniectomy. Both patients’ CSF was repeatedly negative on real-time PCR analysis despite concurrent neurological disease.ConclusionOur report shows that patients’ CSF may be devoid of viral particles even when they test positive for COVID-19 on a nasal swab. Whether SARS-CoV-2 is present in CSF may depend on the systemic disease severity and the degree of the virus’ nervous tissue tropism and should be examined in future studies.

BackgroundRobots in surgery aid in performing delicate, precise maneuvers that humans, with inherent physical abilities, may be limited to perform. The CorPath 200 system is FDA approved and is being implemented in the US for interventional cardiology procedures. CorPath GRX robotic-assisted platform is the next-generation successor of CorPath 200.ObjectiveTo discuss the feasibility and early experience with the use of the CorPath GRX robotic-assisted platform for neuroendovascular procedures, including transradial diagnostic cerebral angiograms and transradial carotid artery stenting.MethodsThe cases of 10 consecutive patients who underwent neuroendovascular robotic-assisted procedures between December 1, 2019 and December 30, 2019, are presented.ResultsSeven patients underwent elective diagnostic cerebral angiography, and three patients underwent carotid artery angioplasty and stenting using the CorPath GRX robotic-assisted platform. All procedures were performed successfully, and no complications were encountered. Conversion to manual control occurred in three diagnostic cases because of a bovine arch that was previously not known. The fluoroscopy time and the procedure time continued to improve with subsequent procedures as we streamlined the workflow.ConclusionThis series demonstrates the early use of this technology. It could potentially be used in the near future for acute stroke interventions in remote geographic locations and in places where a neurointerventionalist is not available.

BACKGROUNDTraumatic brain injury (TBI) carries a devastatingly high rate of morbidity and mortality.OBJECTIVETo assess whether patients undergoing craniotomy/craniectomy for severe TBI fare better at level I than level II trauma centers in a mature trauma system.METHODSThe data were extracted from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study database. Inclusion criteria were patients > 18 yr with severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score less than 9) undergoing craniotomy or craniectomy in the state of Pennsylvania from January 1, 2002 through September 30, 2017.RESULTSOf 3980 patients, 2568 (64.5%) were treated at level I trauma centers and 1412 (35.5%) at level II centers. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups except for significantly worse GCS scores at admission in level I centers (P = .002). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 37.6% in level I centers vs 40.4% in level II centers (P = .08). Mean Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scores at discharge were significantly higher in level I (10.9 ± 5.5) than level II centers (9.8 ± 5.3; P < .005). In multivariate analysis, treatment at level II trauma centers was significantly associated with in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.37; P = .01) and worse FIM scores (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.7; P = .001). Mean hospital and ICU length of stay were significantly longer in level I centers (P < .005).CONCLUSIONThis study showed superior functional outcomes and lower mortality rates in patients undergoing a neurosurgical procedure for severe TBI in level I trauma centers.

BACKGROUND Coil embolization of ruptured bifurcation aneurysms is challenging and often necessitates adjunctive stenting, which requires antiplatelet therapy in the setting of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). The Woven EndoBridge (WEB; Terumo) device is an alternative self-expanding 3D mesh that does not require antiplatelet agents. However, its use has been mostly reserved for unruptured aneurysms. OBJECTIVE To assess the safety and feasibility of ruptured aneurysm treatment with the WEB. METHODS Retrospective analysis of 9 SAH patients with 11 aneurysms that were treated with the WEB device at 2 institutions after FDA approval. RESULTS Hunt and Hess grades were III and IV in 4 (44%) each and V in 1 (11%). All patients were treated within 24 h of hospitalization, and a single WEB was used in all but one aneurysm. Aneurysms treated were 3 basilar tip, 2 anterior communicating artery, 2 posterior inferior cerebellarartery, 1 middle cerebral artery, 1 carotid-ophthalmic artery, 1 posterior communicating artery, and 1 vertebrobasilar junction. Mean aneurysm height and width were 6.2 ± 2.2 mm (range: 3-10) and 5.6 ± 3.0 mm (range: 3.3-14), respectively. Mean dome-to-neck ratio was 1.7 ± 0.8 (range: 1.0-3.8). There was one intraoperative rupture that occurred because of device dislodgement and was managed with embolization. There were no treatment-related mortalities and no re-rupture after securement of the aneurysms with the WEB. CONCLUSION Our preliminary experience indicates that the WEB device can be used safely for ruptured aneurysms of various sizes in the anterior and posterior circulation. Larger series with long-term follow-up are necessary to confirm our findings.

No abstract

No abstract

OBJECTIVEIn this study, the authors aimed to investigate procedural and clinical outcomes between radial and femoral artery access in patients undergoing thrombectomy for acute stroke.METHODSThe authors conducted a single-institution retrospective analysis of 104 patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy, 52 via transradial access and 52 via traditional transfemoral access. They analyzed various procedural and clinical metrics between the two patient cohorts.RESULTSThere was no difference between patient demographics or presenting symptoms of stroke severity between patients treated via transradial or transfemoral access. The mean procedural time was similar between the two treatment cohorts: 60.35 ± 36.81 minutes for the transradial group versus 65.50 ± 29.92 minutes for the transfemoral group (p = 0.451). The mean total fluoroscopy time for the procedure was similar between the two patient cohorts (20.31 ± 11.68 for radial vs 18.49 ± 11.78 minutes for femoral, p = 0.898). The majority of patients underwent thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score 2b/3 revascularization, regardless of access site (92.3% for radial vs 94.2% for femoral, p = 0.696). There was no significant difference in the incidence of access site or periprocedural complications between the transradial and transfemoral cohorts.CONCLUSIONSAcute stroke intervention performed via transradial access is feasible and effective, with no significant difference in procedural and clinical outcomes compared with traditional transfemoral access. Larger studies are required to further validate the efficacy and limitations of transradial access for neurointerventional procedures.

No abstract