OBJECTIVE In this study, the authors sought to determine which US medical schools have produced the most neurosurgery residents and to evaluate potential associations between recruitment and medical school characteristics. METHODS Demographic and bibliometric characteristics were collected for 1572 residents in US-based and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)–accredited neurosurgery programs over the 2014 to 2020 match period using publicly available websites. US medical school characteristics were collected, including class size, presence of a home neurosurgery program, number of clinical neurosurgery faculty, research funding, presence of a neurosurgery interest group, and a top 10 ranking via U.S. News & World Report or Doximity. Correlations and associations were then evaluated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (PCC), independent-samples t-test, and univariable or stepwise multivariable linear regression, as appropriate. RESULTS Vanderbilt University produced the most neurosurgery residents as a percentage of medical graduates at 3.799%. Case Western Reserve University produced the greatest absolute number of neurosurgery residents (n = 40). The following factors were shown to be associated with a higher mean percentage of graduates entering neurosurgery: number of clinical neurosurgery faculty (PCC 0.509, p < 0.001), presence of a neurosurgery interest group (1.022% ± 0.737% vs 0.351% ± 0.327%, p < 0.001) or home neurosurgery program (1.169% ± 0.766% vs 0.428% ± 0.327%, p < 0.001), allopathic compared with osteopathic school (0.976% ± 0.719% vs 0.232% ± 0.272%, p < 0.001), U.S. News top 10 ranking for neurology and neurosurgery (1.923% ± 0.924% vs 0.757% ± 0.607%, p < 0.001), Doximity top 10 residency program ranking (1.715% ± 0.803% vs 0.814% ± 0.688%, p < 0.001), and amount of NIH funding (PCC 0.528, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study have delineated which medical schools produced the most neurosurgery residents currently in training, and the most important independent factors predicting the percentage of graduates entering neurosurgery and the preresidency h-index.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative embolization has traditionally been regarded as a safe and effective adjunct to microsurgical treatment of brain arteriovenous malformations (bAVM). However, there is currently no high-level evidence to ascertain this presumption. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of microsurgery (MS) vs microsurgery with preoperative embolization (E + MS) in patients with bAVM through systematic review. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase. The primary outcome was bAVM obliteration. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative bleeding (mL), complications, worsened modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and mortality. The pooled proportions of outcomes were calculated through the logit transformation method. The odds ratio (OR) of categorical data and mean difference of continuous data were estimated through the Mantel-Haenszel and the inverse variance methods, respectively. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies met the eligibility criteria. One thousand eight hundred twenty-eight patients were treated by microsurgery alone, and 1088 were treated by microsurgery with preoperative embolization, respectively. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in AVM obliteration (94.1% vs 95.6%, OR = 1.15 [0.63-2.11], P = .65), mortality (1.7% vs 2%, OR = 0.88 [0.30-2.58], P = .82), procedural complications (18.2% vs 27.2%, OR = 0.47 [0.19-1.17], P = .10), worsened mRS (21.2% vs 18.5%, OR = 1.08 [0.33-3.54], P = .9), and intraoperative blood loss (mean difference = 182.89 [À87.76, 453.55], P = .19). CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in AVM obliteration, mortality, complications, worse mRS, and intraoperative blood loss between MS and E + MS groups. For AVMs where MS alone has acceptable results, it is reasonable to bypass unnecessary preoperative embolization given higher postoperative complication risk.

We evaluated the effect of insulin resistance and free androgen index (FAI) in non-PCOS (polycystic ovary syndrome) infertile women following controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. A prospective study was done on 144 infertile non-PCOS women with regular menstrual cycle. At first, insulin resistance (IR), free androgen index (FAI), PCOM (polycystic ovary morphology), AFC (antral follicle count), and AMH (anti-Müllerian hormone) were assessed. The patients underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART), and then preovulatory follicles and oocytes retrieved were recorded. The variables of the study were compared between two groups of patients with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (n=66) and non-OHSS patients (n=78). Of the 9 variables: BMI, HOMA-IR, FAI, AFC, AMH, PCOM, and preovulatory follicles were risk factors, while the age and retrieved oocytes were not. The 7 variables that showed significance in the univariate analyses were determined as independent variables included in the multivariable logistic regression analysis, as a result, a total of 5 risk factors, BMI, HOMA-IR, FAI, PCOM, and preovulatory follicles entered the equation. The maximum contribution was HOMA-IR followed by PCOM, FAI, preovulatory follicles and BMI. Patients with OHSS had higher chance to have ovaries with polycystic morphology (74%), about three times more than patients who did not develop OHSS (29%) (p<0.001). The best cut-points for IR, FAI, AFC, AMH, and preovulatry follicles were 2.36, 3.9, 8, 3.3 ng/ml, and 10, respectively. Patients with a higher value of BMI, FAI, HOMA-IR, and preovulatory follicles and the presence of PCOM are more likely to develop OHSS, which are not confined to PCOS patients.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision-making for brain arteriovenous malformations (bAVMs) with microsurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare microsurgery vs SRS for bAVMs. METHOD: Medline and PubMed were searched from inception to June 21, 2022. The primary outcomes were obliteration and follow-up hemorrhage, and secondary outcomes were permanent neurological deficit, worsened modified Rankin scale (mRS), follow-up mRS > 2, and mortality. The GRADE approach was used for grading the level of evidence. RESULTS: Eight studies were included, which yielded 817 patients, of which 432 (52.8%) and 385 (47.1%) patients underwent microsurgery and SRS, respectively. Two cohorts were comparable in age, sex, Spetzler-Martin grade, nidus size, location, deep venous drainage, eloquence, and follow-up. In the microsurgery group, the odds ratio (OR) of obliteration was higher (OR = 18.51 [11.05, 31.01], P < .000001, evidence: high) and the hazard ratio of follow-up hemorrhage was lower (hazard ratio = 0.47 [0.23, 0.97], P = .04, evidence: moderate). The OR of permanent neurological deficit was higher with microsurgery (OR = 2.85 [1.63, 4.97], P = .0002, evidence: low), whereas the OR of worsened mRS (OR = 1.24 [0.65, 2.38], P = .52, evidence: moderate), follow-up mRS > 2 (OR = 0.78 [0.36, 1.7], P = .53, evidence: moderate), and mortality (OR = 1.17 [0.41, 3.3], P = .77, evidence: moderate) were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSION: Microsurgery was superior at obliterating bAVMs and preventing further hemorrhage. Despite a higher rate of postoperative neurological deficit with microsurgery, functional status and mortality were comparable with patients who underwent SRS. Microsurgery should remain a first-line consideration for bAVMs, with SRS reserved for inaccessible locations, highly eloquent areas, and medically high-risk or unwilling patients.

Objective:To compare internal fixation (IF) versus hemiarthroplasty (HA) for elderly individuals (ie, older than 65 years) with nondisplaced (ie, Garden type I or II) femoral neck fracture (FNF).Data Source:We searched English literature of MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase from inception to December 4, 2021.Study Selection:Eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared IF versus HA for elderly individuals with nondisplaced FNF. Primary outcomes were Harris hip score (HHS), quality of life per European Quality of Life 5 Dimension (EQ-5D), and mortality. Secondary outcomes were complications, reoperation, intraoperative bleeding, operation duration, and length of hospital stay.Data Extraction:Two authors separately extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.Data Synthesis:Three RCTs yielding 400 patients were enrolled, of which 203 (50.7%) underwent IF. Internal fixation was inferior to HA with respect to 6-month HHS [mean difference (MD) = −8.28 (−14.46, −2.10), P = 0.009] and 1-year EQ-5D [MD = −0.07 (−0.14, −0.00), P = 0.04]. The 2 techniques were comparable regarding length of hospital stay (day), HHS at 1 and 2 years, EQ-5D at 2 years, and mortality. IF was inferior to HA in implant-related complication [20.1% vs. 6.0%, relative risk (RR) = 3.18 (1.72, 5.88), P = 0.0002] and reoperation rate [20.1% vs. 6.0%, RR = 3.30 (1.79, 6.08), P = 0.0001]. Hemiarthroplasty had a greater blood loss (mL) [MD = −138.88 (−209.58, −68.18), P = 0.001] and operation duration (min) [MD = −23.27 (−44.95, −1.60), P = 0.04] compared with IF.Conclusion:HA is the preferred technique for nondisplaced FNF if early recovery, higher mobility, and better quality of life are priorities. The choice of fixation should be weighed on an individual patient level.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials compared laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with periampullary tumors. Background: LPD has gained attention; however, its safety and efficacy versus OPD remain debatable. Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase. Primary outcomes were the length of hospital stay (LOS) (day), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications, and 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were blood loss (milliliter), blood transfusion, duration of operation (minute), readmission, reoperation, comprehensive complication index score, bile leak, gastrojejunostomy or duodenojejunostomy leak, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal infection, number of harvested lymph nodes, and R0 resection. Pooled odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) of data was calculated using the random-effect model. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation approach was used for grading the level of evidence. Results: Four randomized controlled trials yielding 818 patients were included, of which 411 and 407 patients underwent LPD and OPD, respectively. The meta-analysis concluded that 2 approaches were similar, except in the LPD group, the LOS tended to be shorter [MD=−2.54 (−5.17, 0.09), P=0.06], LOS in ICU was shorter [MD=−1 (−1.8, −0.2), P=0.01], duration of operation was longer [MD=75.16 (23.29, 127.03), P=0.005], blood loss was lower [MD=−115.40 (−152.13, −78.68), P<0.00001], blood transfusion was lower [OR=0.66 (0.47, 0.92), P=0.01], and surgical site infection was lower [OR=0.35 (0.12, 0.96), P=0.04]. The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate. Conclusions: Within the hands of highly skilled surgeons in high-volume centers, LPD is feasible and as safe and efficient as OPD.

No abstract