Object Decompressive craniectomy is a potentially life-saving procedure used in the treatment of medically refractory intracranial hypertension, most commonly in the setting of trauma or cerebral infarction. Once performed, surviving patients are obligated to undergo a second procedure for cranial reconstruction. The complications following cranial reconstruction are not well described in the literature and may very well be underreported. A review of the complications would suggest measures to improve the care of these patients. Methods A retrospective chart review was undertaken of all patients who had undergone cranioplasty during a 7-year period. Demographic data, indications for craniectomy, as well as preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters following cranioplasty, were recorded. Perioperative and postoperative complications were also recorded. Patients were classified as having no complications, any complications, and complications requiring reoperation. The groups were compared to identify risk factors predictive of poor outcomes. Results The authors identified 62 patients who had undergone cranioplasty. The immediate postoperative complication rate was 34%. Of these, 46 patients did not require reoperation and 16 did. Of those requiring reoperation, 7 were due to infection, 2 from wound breakdown, 2 from intracranial hemorrhage, 3 from bone resorption, and 1 from a sunken cranioplasty, and 1 patient's cranioplasty procedure was prematurely ended due to intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia. The only factor statistically associated with need for reoperation was the presence of a bifrontal cranial defect (bifrontal: 8 [67%] of 12, requiring reoperation; unilateral: 8 [16%] of 49 requiring reoperation; p < 0.01) Conclusions Cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy is associated with a high complication rate. Patients undergoing a bifrontal craniectomy are at significantly increased risk for postcranioplasty complications, including the need for reoperation.

Object Minimally invasive lumbar discectomy is a refinement of the standard open microsurgical discectomy technique. Proponents of the minimally invasive technique suggest that it improves patient outcome, shortens hospital stay, and decreases hospital costs. Despite these claims there is little support in the literature to justify the adoption of minimally invasive discectomy over standard open microsurgical discectomy. In the present study, the authors address some of these issues by comparing the short-term outcomes in patients who underwent first time, single-level lumbar discectomy at L3–4, L4–5, or L5–S1 using either a minimally invasive percutaneous, muscle splitting approach or a standard, open, muscle-stripping microsurgical approach. Methods A retrospective chart review of 172 patients who had undergone a first-time, single-level lumbar discectomy at either L3–4, L4–5, or L5–S1 was performed. Perioperative results were assessed by comparing the following parameters between patients who had undergone minimally invasive discectomy and those who received standard open microsurgical discectomy: length of stay, operative time, estimated blood loss, rate of cerebrospinal fluid leak, post-anesthesia care unit narcotic use, need for a physical therapy consultation, and need for admission to the hospital. Results Forty-nine patients underwent minimally invasive discectomy, and 123 patients underwent open microsurgical discectomy. At baseline the groups did differ significantly with respect to age, but did not differ with respect to height, weight, sex, body mass index, level of radiculopathy, side of radiculopathy, insurance status, or type of preoperative analgesic use. No statistically significant differences were identified in operative time, rate of cerebrospinal fluid leak, or need for a physical therapy consultation. Statistically significant differences were identified in length of stay, estimated blood loss, postanesthesia care unit narcotic use, and need for admission to the hospital. Conclusions In this retrospective study, patients who underwent minimally invasive discectomy were found to have similiar perioperative results as those who underwent open microsurgical discectomy. The differences, although statistically significant, are of modest clinical significance.

Object Hinge craniotomy (HC) has recently been described as an alternative to decompressive craniectomy (DC). Although HC may obviate the need for cranial reconstruction, an analysis comparing HC to DC has not yet been published. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of 50 patients who underwent cranial decompression (20 with HC, 30 with DC). Baseline demographics, neurological examination results, and underlying pathology were reviewed. Clinical outcome was assessed by length of ventilatory support, length of intensive care unit stay, and survival at discharge. Control of intracranial hypertension was assessed by average daily intracranial pressure (ICP) for the duration of ICP monitoring and an ICP therapeutic intensity index. Radiographic outcomes were assessed by comparing preoperative and postoperative CT scans for: 1) Rotterdam score; 2) postoperative volume of cerebral expansion; 3) presence of uncal herniation; 4) intracerebral hemorrhage; and 5) extraaxial hematoma. Postoperative CT scans were analyzed for the size of the craniotomy/craniectomy and magnitude of extracranial herniation. Results No significant differences were identified in baseline demographics, neurological examination results, or Rotterdam score between the HC and DC groups. Both HC and DC resulted in adequate control of ICP, as reflected in the average ICP for each group of patients (HC = 12.0 ± 5.6 mm Hg, DC = 12.7 ± 4.4 mm Hg; p > 0.05) at the same average therapeutic intensity index (HC = 1.2 ± 0.3, DC = 1.2 ± 0.4; p > 0.05). The need for reoperation (3 [15%] of 20 patients in the HC group, 3 [10%] of 30 patients in the DC group; p > 0.05), hospital survival (15 [75%] of 20 in the HC group, 21 [70%] of 30 in the DC group; p > 0.05), and mean duration of both mechanical ventilation (9.0 ± 7.2 days in the HC group, 11.7 ± 12.0 days in the DC group; p > 0.05) and intensive care unit stay (11.6 ± 7.7 days in the HC group, 15.6 ± 15.3 days in the DC group; p > 0.05) were similar. The difference in operative time for the two procedures was not statistically significant (130.4 ± 71.9 minutes in the HC group, 124.9 ± 63.3 minutes in the DC group; p > 0.05). The size of the cranial defect was comparable between the 2 groups. Postoperative imaging characteristics, including Rotterdam score, also did not differ significantly. Although a smaller volume of cerebral expansion was associated with HC (77.5 ± 54.1 ml) than DC (105.1 ± 65.1 ml), this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions Hinge craniotomy appears to be at least as good as DC in providing postoperative ICP control and results in equivalent early clinical outcomes.

An in vitro biomechanical study was conducted to compare the effects of disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion on cervical spine biomechanics in a multilevel human cadaveric model. Three spine conditions were studied: harvested, single-level cervical disc arthroplasty, and single-level fusion. A programmable testing apparatus was used that replicated physiological flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Measurements included vertebral motion, applied load, and bending moments. Relative rotations at the superior, treated, and inferior motion segment units (MSUs) were normalized with respect to the overall rotation of those three MSUs and compared using a one-way analysis of variance with Student–Newman–Keuls test (p < 0.05). Simulated fusion decreased motion across the treated site relative to the harvested and disc arthroplasty conditions. The reduced motion at the treated site was compensated at the adjacent segments by an increase in motion. For all modes of testing, use of an artificial disc prosthesis did not alter the motion patterns at either the instrumented level or adjacent segments compared with the harvested condition, except in extension.

Hinge craniotomy appears to be at least as good as decompressive craniectomy in providing postoperative ICP control at a similar therapeutic index. Although the in-hospital mortality was higher in patients treated with hinge craniotomy, that procedure resulted in superior long-term functional outcomes and may help limit postoperative complications.