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.

The accuracy of CTA in the diagnosis of ruptured intracranial aneurysm may be lower than previously reported. CTA has a low sensitivity for aneurysms less than 5 mm in size, in locations adjacent to bony structures, and for those arising from small caliber parent vessels. It is our recommendation that CTA should be used with caution when used alone in the diagnosis of ruptured intracranial aneurysms.

No abstract

BACKGROUND The pursuit of improved accuracy for localization and electrode implantation in deep brain stimulation (DBS) and stereoelectroencephalography (sEEG) has fostered an abundance of disparate surgical/stereotactic practices. Specific practices/technologies directly modify implantation accuracy; however, no study has described their respective influence in multivariable context. OBJECTIVE To synthesize the known literature to statistically quantify factors affecting implantation accuracy. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the inverse-variance weighted pooled mean target error (MTE) of implanted electrodes among patients undergoing DBS or sEEG. MTE was defined as Euclidean distance between planned and final electrode tip. Meta-regression identified moderators of MTE in a multivariable-adjusted model. RESULTS A total of 37 eligible studies were identified from a search return of 2,901 potential articles (2002-2018) – 27 DBS and 10 sEEG. Random-effects pooled MTE = 1.91 mm (95% CI: 1.7-2.1) for DBS and 2.34 mm (95% CI: 2.1-2.6) for sEEG. Meta-regression identified study year, robot use, frame/frameless technique, and intraoperative electrophysiologic testing (iEPT) as significant multivariable-adjusted moderators of MTE (P < .0001, R2 = 0.63). Study year was associated with a 0.92-mm MTE reduction over the 16-yr study period (P = .0035), and robot use with a 0.79-mm decrease (P = .0019). Frameless technique was associated with a mean 0.50-mm (95% CI: 0.17-0.84) increase, and iEPT use with a 0.45-mm (95% CI: 0.10-0.80) increase in MTE. Registration method, imaging type, intraoperative imaging, target, and demographics were not significantly associated with MTE on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION Robot assistance for stereotactic electrode implantation is independently associated with improved accuracy and reduced target error. This remains true regardless of other procedural factors, including frame-based vs frameless technique.

Baastrup’s disease is a relatively common disorder of the vertebral column, characterized by low back pain arising from the close approximation of adjacent posterior spinous processes and resultant degenerative changes, most commonly at L4-L5. Though fairly common, Baastrup’s disease is overwhelmingly underdiagnosed and often missed due to a lack of knowledge and/or improper diagnostic techniques, leading to frequent mistreatment. We present a case of a 56-year-old man who presented with chronic, ongoing low back pain of several years duration. His pain was relieved by flexion of the spine, and aggravated by extension. Imaging studies revealed “kissing” posterior spinous processes, consistent with a diagnosis of Baastrup’s Disease. He was treated with subcutaneous steroid injections and showed considerable clinical improvement.

OBJECTIVE The authors compared primary lumbar spine fusions with revision fusions by using patient Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores to evaluate the impact of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based medicine (EBM) lumbar fusion indications on patient-reported outcome measures of revision surgeries. METHODS This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective observational cohort of patients who underwent elective lumbar fusion between January 2018 and December 2019 at a single quaternary spine surgery service and had a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. A prospective quality improvement database was constructed that included the data from all elective lumbar spine surgeries, which were categorized prospectively as primary or revision surgeries and EBM-concordant or EBM-discordant revision surgeries based on the NASS coverage EBM policy. In total, 309 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The ODIs of all groups (primary, revision, revision EBM concordant, and revision EBM discordant) were statistically compared. Differences in frequencies between cohorts were evaluated using chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. The unpaired 2-tailed Student t-test and the Mann-Whitney U-test for nonparametric data were used to compare continuous variables. Logistic regression was performed to determine the associations between independent variables (surgery status and NASS criteria indications) and functional outcomes. RESULTS Primary lumbar fusions were significantly associated with improved functional outcomes compared with revisions, as evidenced by ODI scores (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.16–2.95 to achieve a minimal clinically important difference, p = 0.01). The percentage of patients whose functional status had declined at the 6-month postoperative evaluation was significantly higher in patients who had undergone a revision surgery than in those who underwent a primary surgery (23% vs 12.3%, respectively). An increase in ODI score, indicating worse clinical outcome after surgery, was greater in patients who underwent revision procedures (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.17–3.91, p = 0.0014). Patients who underwent EBM-concordant revision surgery had significantly improved mean ODI scores compared with those who underwent EBM-discordant revision surgery (7.02 ± 5.57 vs −4.6 ± 6.54, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS The results of this prospective quality improvement program investigation illustrate that outcomes of primary lumbar fusions were superior to outcomes of revisions. However, revision procedures that met EBM guidelines were associated with greater improvements in ODI scores, which indicates that the use of defined EBM guideline criteria for reoperation can improve clinical outcomes of revision lumbar fusions.

No abstract

No abstract