OBJECTIVE The authors’ goal was to use a multicenter, observational cohort study to determine whether supramarginal resection (SMR) of FLAIR-hyperintense tumor beyond the contrast-enhanced (CE) area influences the overall survival (OS) of patients with isocitrate dehydrogenase–wild-type (IDH-wt) glioblastoma after gross-total resection (GTR). METHODS The medical records of 888 patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent resection of GBM between January 2011 and December 2017 were reviewed. Volumetric measurements of the CE tumor and surrounding FLAIR-hyperintense tumor were performed, clinical variables were obtained, and associations with OS were analyzed. RESULTS In total, 101 patients with newly diagnosed IDH-wt GBM who underwent GTR of the CE tumor met the inclusion criteria. In multivariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years (HR 1.97; 95% CI 1.01–2.56; p < 0.001) and contact with the lateral ventricles (HR 1.59; 95% CI 1.13–1.78; p = 0.025) were associated with shorter OS, but preoperative Karnofsky Performance Status ≥ 70 (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.27–0.89; p = 0.006), MGMT promotor methylation (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.52–0.99; p = 0.044), and increased percentage of SMR (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98–0.99; p = 0.02) were associated with longer OS. Finally, 20% SMR was the minimum percentage associated with beneficial OS (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.35–0.89; p = 0.01), but > 60% SMR had no significant influence (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.45–1.21; p = 0.234). CONCLUSIONS SMR is associated with improved OS in patients with IDH-wt GBM who undergo GTR of CE tumor. At least 20% SMR of the CE tumor was associated with beneficial OS, but greater than 60% SMR had no significant influence on OS.

BACKGROUND:Management of degenerative disease of the spine has evolved to favor minimally invasive techniques, including nonrobotic-assisted and robotic-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Value-based spending is being increasingly implemented to control rising costs in the US healthcare system. With an aging population, it is fundamental to understand which procedure(s) may be most cost-effective.OBJECTIVE:To compare robotic and nonrobotic MIS-TLIF through a cost-utility analysis.METHODS:We considered direct medical costs related to surgical intervention and to the hospital stay, as well as 1-yr utilities. We estimated costs by assessing all cases involving adults undergoing robotic surgery at a single institution and an equal number of patients undergoing nonrobotic surgery, matched by demographic and clinical characteristics. We adopted a willingness to pay of $50 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Uncertainty was addressed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.RESULTS:Costs were estimated based on a total of 76 patients, including 38 undergoing robot-assisted and 38 matched patients undergoing nonrobot MIS-TLIF. Using point estimates, robotic surgery was projected to cost $21 546.80 and to be associated with 0.68 QALY, and nonrobotic surgery was projected to cost $22 398.98 and to be associated with 0.67 QALY. Robotic surgery was found to be more cost-effective strategy, with cost-effectiveness being sensitive operating room/materials and room costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis identified robotic surgery as cost-effective in 63% of simulations.CONCLUSION:Our results suggest that at a willingness to pay of $50 000/QALY, robotic-assisted MIS-TLIF was cost-effective in 63% of simulations. Cost-effectiveness depends on operating room and room (admission) costs, with potentially different results under distinct neurosurgical practices.

No abstract

Objective: To describe telemedicine utilization in neurosurgery at a single tertiary institution to provide outpatient care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, with 315 telemedicine visits performed by the neurosurgery department. Patients and Methods: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic national stay-at-home orders and postponed elective surgeries, we converted upcoming clinic visits into telemedicine visits and rescheduled other patients thought not to be markedly affected by surgical postponement. We reviewed the charts of all patients who had telehealth visits from April 1 through April 30, 2020, and collected demographic information, diagnosis, type of visit, and whether they received surgery; a satisfaction questionnaire was also administered. Results: In March 2020, 94% (644 of 685) of the neurosurgery clinic visits were face-to-face, whereas in April 2020, 55% (315 of 573) of the visits were telemedicine (P<.001). In April, of the 315 telemedicine visits, 172 (55%) were phone consults and 143 (45%) video consults; 101 (32%) were new consults, 195 (62%) return visits, and 18 (6%) postoperative follow-up. New consults were more likely to be video with audio than return visits and postoperative follow-up (P<.001). Only 39 patients (12%) required surgery. Ninety-one percent of the questionnaire respondents were very likely to recommend telemedicine. Conclusion: Rapid implementation of telemedicine to evaluate neurosurgery patients became an effective tool for preoperative consultation, postoperative and follow-up visits during the COVID-19 pandemic, and decreased risks of exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to patients and health care staff. Future larger studies should investigate the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine used to triage surgical from nonsurgical patients, potential cost-savings from reducing travel burdens and lost work time, improved access, reduced wait times, and impact on patient satisfaction.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE There has been increasing interest in the use of spinal anesthesia (SA) for spine surgery, especially within Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols. Despite the wide adoption of SA by the orthopedic practices, it has not gained wide acceptance in lumbar spine surgery. Studies investigating SA versus general anesthesia (GA) in lumbar laminectomy and discectomy have found that SA reduces perioperative costs and leads to a reduction in analgesic use, as well as to shorter anesthesia and surgery time. The aim of this retrospective, case-control study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS)–transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) after administration of SA with those who underwent MIS-TLIF under GA. METHODS Overall, 40 consecutive patients who underwent MIS-TLIF by a single surgeon were analyzed; 20 patients received SA and 20 patients received GA. Procedure time, intraoperative adverse events, postoperative adverse events, postoperative length of stay, 3-hour postanesthesia care unit (PACU) numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score, opioid medication, and time to first ambulation were collected for each patient. RESULTS The two groups were homogeneous for clinical characteristics. A decrease in total operating room (OR) time was found for patients who underwent MIS-TLIF after administration of SA, with a mean OR time of 156.5 ± 18.9 minutes versus 213.6 ± 47.4 minutes for patients who underwent MIS-TLIF under GA (p < 0.0001), a reduction of 27%. A decrease in total procedure time was also observed for SA versus GA (122 ± 16.7 minutes vs 175.2 ± 10 minutes; p < 0.0001). No significant differences were found in intraoperative and postoperative adverse events. There was a difference in the mean maximum NRS pain score during the first 3 hours in the PACU as patients who received SA reported a lower pain score compared with those who received GA (4.8 ± 3.5 vs 7.3 ± 2.7; p = 0.018). No significant difference was observed in morphine equivalents received by the two groups. A difference was also observed in the mean overall NRS pain score, with 2.4 ± 2.1 for the SA group versus 4.9 ± 2.3 for the GA group (p = 0.001). Patients who received SA had a shorter time to first ambulation compared with those who received GA (385.8 ± 353.8 minutes vs 855.9 ± 337.4 minutes; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study have pointed to some important observations in this patient population. SA offers unique advantages in comparison with GA for performing MIS-TLIF, including reduced OR time and postoperative pain, and faster postoperative mobilization.

OBJECTIVE Recent studies have proposed resection of the T2 FLAIR hyperintensity beyond the T1 contrast enhancement (supramarginal resection [SMR]) for IDH–wild-type glioblastoma (GBM) to further improve patients’ overall survival (OS). GBMs have significant variability in tumor cell density, distribution, and infiltration. Advanced mathematical models based on patient-specific radiographic features have provided new insights into GBM growth kinetics on two important parameters of tumor aggressiveness: proliferation rate (ρ) and diffusion rate (D). The aim of this study was to investigate OS of patients with IDH–wild-type GBM who underwent SMR based on a mathematical model of cell distribution and infiltration profile (tumor invasiveness profile). METHODS Volumetric measurements were obtained from the selected regions of interest from pre- and postoperative MRI studies of included patients. The tumor invasiveness profile (proliferation/diffusion [ρ/D] ratio) was calculated using the following formula: ρ/D ratio = (4π/3)2/3 × (6.106/[VT21/1 − VT11/1])2, where VT2 and VT1 are the preoperative FLAIR and contrast-enhancing volumes, respectively. Patients were split into subgroups based on their tumor invasiveness profiles. In this analysis, tumors were classified as nodular, moderately diffuse, or highly diffuse. RESULTS A total of 101 patients were included. Tumors were classified as nodular (n = 34), moderately diffuse (n = 34), and highly diffuse (n = 33). On multivariate analysis, increasing SMR had a significant positive correlation with OS for moderately and highly diffuse tumors (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–0.99; p = 0.02; and HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96–0.99; p = 0.04, respectively). On threshold analysis, OS benefit was seen with SMR from 10% to 29%, 10% to 59%, and 30% to 90%, for nodular, moderately diffuse, and highly diffuse, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The impact of SMR on OS for patients with IDH–wild-type GBM is influenced by the degree of tumor invasiveness. The authors’ results show that increasing SMR is associated with increased OS in patients with moderate and highly diffuse IDH–wild-type GBMs. When grouping SMR into 10% intervals, this benefit was seen for all tumor subgroups, although for nodular tumors, the maximum beneficial SMR percentage was considerably lower than in moderate and highly diffuse tumors.

No abstract