Novel Statistical Analyses to Assess Hearing Outcomes After ABI Implantation in NF2 Patients: Systematic Review and Individualized Patients Analysis

BACKGROUND: Patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 develop bilateral vestibular schwannomas with progressive hearing loss. Auditory brainstem implants (ABIs) stimulate hearing in the cochlear nuclei and show promise in improving hearing. Here, we assess the impact of ABI on hearing over time by systematically reviewing the literature and re-analyzing available individual patient data. METHODS: A multidatabase search identified 3 studies with individual patient data of longitudinal hearing outcomes after ABI insertion in adults. Data were collected on hearing outcomes of different sound complexities from sound to speech using an ABI +/- lip reading ability plus demographic data. Because of heterogeneity each study was analyzed separately using random effects multilevel mixed linear modeling. RESULTS: Across all 3 studies (n = 111 total) there were significant improvements in hearing over time from ABI placement (P < 0.000 in all). Improvements in comprehension of sounds, words, sentences, and speech occurred over time with ABI use + lip reading but lip reading ability did not improve over time. All categories of hearing complexity had over 50% comprehension after over 1 year of ABI use and some subsets had over 75% or near 100% comprehension. Vowel comprehension was greater than consonant, and word comprehension was greater than sentence comprehension (P < 0.0001 in both). Age and sex did not predict outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: ABIs improve hearing beyond lip reading alone, which represents baseline patient function prior to treatment, and the benefits continue to improve with time. These findings may be used to guide patient counseling regarding ABI insertion, rehabilitation course after insertion, and future studies

Neuroplasticity and regeneration after spinal cord injury

ABSTRACT: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a debilitating condition with significant personal, societal, and economic burden. The highest proportion of traumatic injuries occur at the cervical level, which results in severe sensorimotor and autonomic deficits. Following the initial physical damage associated with traumatic injuries, secondary pro-inflammatory, excitotoxic, and ischemic cascades are initiated further contributing to neuronal and glial cell death. Additionally, emerging evidence has begun to reveal that spinal interneurons undergo subtype specific neuroplastic circuit rearrangements in the weeks to months following SCI, contributing to or hindering functional recovery. The current therapeutic guidelines and standards of care for SCI patients include early surgery, hemodynamic regulation, and rehabilitation. Additionally, preclinical work and ongoing clinical trials have begun exploring neuroregenerative strategies utilizing endogenous neural stem/progenitor cells, stem cell transplantation, combinatorial approaches, and direct cell reprogramming. This review will focus on emerging cellular and noncellular regenerative therapies with an overview of the current available strategies, the role of interneurons in plasticity, and the exciting research avenues enhancing tissue repair following SCI

Hospital costs associated with inpatient versus outpatient awake craniotomy for resection of brain tumors

10.1016/j.jocn.2018.10.110JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE59162-16

Timing of Decompressive Surgery in Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury: Systematic Review Update

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgical decompression is a cornerstone in the management of patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI); however, the influence of the timing of surgery on neurological recovery after acute SCI remains controversial. This systematic review aims to summarize current evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of early (≤24 hours) or late (>24 hours) surgery in patients with acute traumatic SCI for all levels of the spine. Furthermore, this systematic review aims to evaluate the evidence with respect to the impact of ultra-early surgery (earlier than 24 hours from injury) on these outcomes. A systematic search of the literature was performed using the MEDLINE database (PubMed), Cochrane database, and EMBASE. Two reviewers independently screened the citations from the search to determine whether an article satisfied predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. For all key questions, we focused on primary studies with the least potential for bias and those that controlled for baseline neurological status and specified time from injury to surgery. Risk of bias of each article was assessed using standardized tools based on study design. Finally, the overall strength of evidence for the primary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE approach. Data were synthesized both qualitatively and quantitively using meta-analyses. Twenty-one studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria and formed the evidence base for this review update. Seventeen studies compared outcomes between patients treated with early (≤24 hours from injury) compared to late (>24 hours) surgical decompression. An additional 4 studies evaluated even earlier time frames: <4, <5, <8 or <12 hours. Based on moderate evidence, patients were 2 times more likely to recover by ≥ 2 grades on the ASIA Impairment Score (AIS) at 6 months (RR: 2.76, 95% CI 1.60 to 4.98) and 12 months (RR: 1.95, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.18) if they were decompressed within 24 hours compared to after 24 hours. Furthermore, moderate evidence suggested that patients receiving early decompression had an additional 4.50 (95% CI 1.70 to 7.29) point improvement on the ASIA motor score. With respect to administrative outcomes, there was low evidence that early decompression may decrease acute hospital length of stay. In terms of safety, there was moderate evidence that suggested the rate of major complications does not differ between patients undergoing early compared to late surgery. Furthermore, there was no difference in rates of mortality, surgical device-related complications, sepsis/systemic infection or neurological deterioration based on timing of surgery. Firm conclusions were not possible with respect to the impact of ultra-early surgery on neurological, functional or safety outcomes given the poor-quality studies, imprecision and the overlap in the time frames examined. This review provides an evidence base to support the update on clinical practice guidelines related to the timing of surgical decompression in acute SCI. Overall, the strength of evidence was moderate that early surgery (≤24 hours from injury) compared to late (>24 hours) results in clinically meaningful improvements in neurological recovery. Further studies are required to delineate the role of ultra-early surgery in patients with acute SCI

Timing of Decompressive Surgery in Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury: Systematic Review Update

Study designSystematic review and meta-analysis.ObjectiveSurgical decompression is a cornerstone in the management of patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI); however, the influence of the timing of surgery on neurological recovery after acute SCI remains controversial. This systematic review aims to summarize current evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of early (≤24&nbsp;hours) or late (&gt;24&nbsp;hours) surgery in patients with acute traumatic SCI for all levels of the spine. Furthermore, this systematic review aims to evaluate the evidence with respect to the impact of ultra-early surgery (earlier than 24&nbsp;hours from injury) on these outcomes.MethodsA systematic search of the literature was performed using the MEDLINE database (PubMed), Cochrane database, and EMBASE. Two reviewers independently screened the citations from the search to determine whether an article satisfied predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. For all key questions, we focused on primary studies with the least potential for bias and those that controlled for baseline neurological status and specified time from injury to surgery. Risk of bias of each article was assessed using standardized tools based on study design. Finally, the overall strength of evidence for the primary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE approach. Data were synthesized both qualitatively and quantitively using meta-analyses.ResultsTwenty-one studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria and formed the evidence base for this review update. Seventeen studies compared outcomes between patients treated with early (≤24&nbsp;hours from injury) compared to late (&gt;24&nbsp;hours) surgical decompression. An additional 4 studies evaluated even earlier time frames: &lt;4, &lt;5, &lt;8 or &lt;12&nbsp;hours. Based on moderate evidence, patients were 2&nbsp;times more likely to recover by ≥ 2 grades on the ASIA Impairment Score (AIS) at 6&nbsp;months (RR: 2.76, 95% CI 1.60 to 4.98) and 12&nbsp;months (RR: 1.95, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.18) if they were decompressed within 24&nbsp;hours compared to after 24 hours. Furthermore, moderate evidence suggested that patients receiving early decompression had an additional 4.50 (95% CI 1.70 to 7.29) point improvement on the ASIA motor score. With respect to administrative outcomes, there was low evidence that early decompression may decrease acute hospital length of stay. In terms of safety, there was moderate evidence that suggested the rate of major complications does not differ between patients undergoing early compared to late surgery. Furthermore, there was no difference in rates of mortality, surgical device-related complications, sepsis/systemic infection or neurological deterioration based on timing of surgery. Firm conclusions were not possible with respect to the impact of ultra-early surgery on neurological, functional or safety outcomes given the poor-quality studies, imprecision and the overlap in the time frames examined.ConclusionsThis review provides an evidence base to support the update on clinical practice guidelines related to the timing of surgical decompression in acute SCI. Overall, the strength of evidence was moderate that early surgery (≤24&nbsp;hours from injury) compared to late (&gt;24&nbsp;hours) results in clinically meaningful improvements in neurological recovery. Further studies are required to delineate the role of ultra-early surgery in patients with acute SCI

A Practical Classification System for Acute Cervical Spinal Cord Injury Based on a Three-Phased Modified Delphi Process From the AOSpine Spinal Cord Injury Knowledge Forum

Study Design A modified Delphi study. Objective To assess current practice patterns in the management of cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) and develop a simplified, practical classification system which offers ease of use in the acute setting, incorporates modern diagnostic tools and provides utility in determining treatment strategies for cervical SCI. Methods A three-phase modified Delphi procedure was performed between April 2020 and December 2021. During the first phase, members of the AOSpine SCI Knowledge forum proposed variables of importance for classifying and treating cervical SCI. The second phase involved an international survey of spine surgeons gauging practices surrounding the role and timing of surgery for cervical SCI and opinions regarding factors which most influence these practices. For the third phase, information obtained from phases 1 and 2 were used to draft a new classification system. Results 396 surgeons responded to the survey. Neurological status, spinal stability and cord compression were the most important variables influencing decisions surrounding the role and timing of surgery. The majority (>50%) of respondents preferred to perform surgery within 24 hours post-SCI in clinical scenarios in which there was instability, severe cord compression or severe neurology. Situations in which <50% of respondents were inclined to operate early included: SCI with mild neurological impairments, with cord compression but without instability (with or without medical comorbidities), and SCI without cord compression or instability. Conclusions Spinal stability, cord compression and neurological status are the most important variables influencing surgeons’ practices surrounding the surgical management of cervical SCI. Based on these results, a simplified classification system for acute cervical SCI has been proposed