Purpose Investigate the effect of age category (1–9 years vs 10–18 years), sex, Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) level, and presence of dystonia on changes in eight function test parameters 24 months after selective dorsal rhizotomy (SDR). Methods Prospective, single-center study of all children aged 3–18 years with bilateral cerebral palsy with spasticity who underwent SDR at a tertiary pediatric neurosurgery center between 2012 and 2019. A linear mixed effects model was used to assess longitudinal changes. Results From 2012 to 2019, 42 children had follow-up available at 24 months. Mean GMFM-66 scores increased after SDR (mean difference 5.1 units: 95% CI 3.05–7.13, p < 0.001). Statistically significant improvements were observed in CPQoL, PEDI Self-care and Mobility, 6MWT, Gillette, and MAS scores. There was no significant difference in the improvements seen for age category, sex, GMFCS level, and presence of dystonia for most of the parameters tested (5/8, 6/8, 5/8, and 6/8 respectively). Conclusion SDR may improve gross and fine motor function, mobility and self-care, quality of life, and overall outcome based on extensive scoring parameter testing at 24 months. Atypical patient populations may benefit from SDR if appropriately selected. Multi-center, prospective registries investigating the effect of SDR are required.

No abstract

Objective: To compare clinical outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling in patients undergoing valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) surgery. Method: Electronic database search at PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Ovid, and Google scholar was performed from inception to January 2020. Primary outcomes were aortic valve (AV) reintervention and postoperative grade of aortic insufficiency (AI) while secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, reoperation for bleeding, and operative times. Results: A total of 21 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1283 patients had reimplantation while 1150 had remodeling. No difference in preoperative demographics was noted except reimplantation patients were younger (48 ± 16 vs. 56 ± 15 years; p < .00001). The cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were shorter in the remodeling cohort (168 ± 38 vs. 150 ± 37 min; p = .0001 and 133 ± 31 vs. 112 ± 30 min; p = .0002, respectively). No difference in concomitant total arch surgery (14% in reimplantation vs. 15% in remodeling; p = .53). Postoperatively, there were similar stroke rates (3% in both cohorts; p = .54), rates of reoperation for bleeding (9% in reimplantation vs. 12% in remodeling; p = .88), and 30-day mortality (3% in reimplantation vs. 4% in remodeling; p = .96). No difference in early AV reintervention (1% in reimplantation vs. 2% in remodeling; p = .07), and late AV reintervention (4% in reimplantation vs. 7% in remodeling; p = .07). The AI of +2 grade was significantly lower in the reimplantation cohort (5% vs. 8%; p = .01). Conclusion: Our study shows comparable clinical outcomes between both techniques. The practice of each technique is largely center and surgeon dependent. Larger sample size cohorts with minimal confounding factors are required to confirm the above findings.

No abstract

Objective: We sought to compare clinical outcomes in patients with acute type A aortic dissection that undergone surgical repair during in-hours (IH) versus out-ofhours (OOH). Methods: An electronic literature search was done till March 2020 to include studies with comparative cohorts of IH versus OOH. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, stroke, and reoperation for bleeding; secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury, total hospital stay, and intensive care unit stay. Results: Six articles with a total of 3744 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was similar, 60 ± 12 versus 60 ± 13 in IH versus OOH (p = .25). Aortic root and total arch replacement were similar in both cohorts, 22% in IH versus 25% in OOH