Effectiveness of antiepileptic prophylaxis used with supratentorial craniotomies: a meta-analysis

Thirty publications on the effectiveness of prophylactic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) with supratentorial craniotomies were reviewed (1980–1995). After a first selection, six controlled studies remained (11 publications). These six were evaluated according to previously defined methodological criteria. The criteria were divided into three main categories: (1) internal validity, (2) proper and relevant outcome-measures and (3) analysis. In this way a maximum of 145 points could be obtained for each study. Three studies were considered to be of satisfactory methodological quality (≥55% of 145 points) and the odds ratios were calculated as a measure of association between treatment and occurrence of convulsions. The odds ratios of these three studies were statistically pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel Estimator. From this test it appeared that prophylactically used AEDs showed a tendency to prevent postoperative convulsions, but this effect was certainly not statistically significant (P = 0.1 one-tailed). Points of attention concerning possible future investigations are stressed

The Accuracy of Patient-Specific Spinal Drill Guides Is Non-Inferior to Computer-Assisted Surgery:The Results of a Split-Spine Randomized Controlled Trial

In recent years, patient-specific spinal drill guides (3DPGs) have gained widespread popularity. Several studies have shown that the accuracy of screw insertion with these guides is superior to that obtained using the freehand insertion technique, but there are no studies that make a comparison with computer-assisted surgery (CAS). The aim of this study was to determine whether the accuracy of insertion of spinal screws using 3DPGs is non-inferior to insertion via CAS. A randomized controlled split-spine study was performed in which 3DPG and CAS were randomly assigned to the left or right sides of the spines of patients undergoing fixation surgery. The 3D measured accuracy of screw insertion was the primary study outcome parameter. Sixty screws inserted in 10 patients who completed the study protocol were used for the non-inferiority analysis. The non-inferiority of 3DPG was demonstrated for entry-point accuracy, as the upper margin of the 95% CI (−1.01 mm–0.49 mm) for the difference between the means did not cross the predetermined non-inferiority margin of 1 mm (p < 0.05). We also demonstrated non-inferiority of 3D angular accuracy (p < 0.05), with a 95% CI for the true difference of −2.30◦–1.35◦, not crossing the predetermined non-inferiority margin of 3◦ (p < 0.05). The results of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed that 3DPGs provide a non-inferior alternative to CAS in terms of screw insertion accuracy and have considerable potential as a navigational technique in spinal fixation

Surgical Interventions for Cervical Radiculopathy without Myelopathy:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of surgical interventions for cervical degenerative disorders has been investigated in multiple systematic reviews. Differences in study population (e.g., patients with myelopathy and/or radiculopathy) were often neglected. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of surgical interventions for patients with symptoms of cervical radiculopathy without myelopathy by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A comprehensive systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) to identify RCTs that investigated the effectiveness of surgical interventions using an anterior or posterior approach compared with other interventions for patients with pure cervical radiculopathy. Outcomes were success rates (Odom criteria, similar rating scales, or percentage of patients who improved), complication and reoperation rates, work status, disability (Neck Disability Index), and pain (arm and neck). The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the likelihood of the risk of bias. A random-effects model was used. Heterogeneity among study results (I ≥ 50% or p < 0.05) was explored by conducting subgroup analyses. Funnel plots were used to assess the likelihood of publication bias. RESULTS: A total of 21 RCTs were included, comprising 1,567 patients. For all outcomes, among all surgical techniques, only 1 pooled estimate showed a significant effect on success rate, which was in favor of anterior cervical discectomy with fusion compared with anterior cervical discectomy without an intervertebral spacer (p = 0.02; risk ratio [RR] = 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77 to 0.98). Complication rates were higher when autologous bone graft from the iliac crest was used as an intervertebral spacer (p < 0.01; RR = 3.40; 95% CI = 1.56 to 7.43), related to donor-site morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated consistent results regarding clinical outcome for pure cervical radiculopathy among all studied interventions. Complication and reoperation rates were also similar, with the exception of higher complication rates in patients in whom autologous bone grafts were used. On the basis of clinical outcome and safety, there is no superior surgical intervention for pure cervical radiculopathy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for symptomatic single-level spondylolisthesis (LIFT): a multicentre controlled, patient blinded, randomised non-inferiority trialResearch in context

Summary: Background: The effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared to posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients with single-level spondylolisthesis has not been substantiated. To address the evidence gap, a well-powered randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing the effectiveness of TLIF with PLIF, entitled the Lumbar Interbody Fusion Trial (LIFT), was conducted. Methods: In a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial among five Dutch hospitals, 161 patients were randomly allocated to either TLIF or PLIF (1:1), stratified according to study site. Patients and statisticians were blinded for group assignment. All patients were over 18 years old with symptomatic single-level degenerative, isthmic or iatrogenic lumbar spondylolisthesis, and eligible for lumbar interbody fusion surgery through a posterior approach. The primary outcome was change in disability measured with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) from preoperative to one year postoperative. The non-inferiority limit was set to 7.0 points based on the MCID of ODI. Secondary outcomes were change in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) assessed with EuroQol 5 Dimensions, 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), as well as back and leg pain (Numerical rating scale, NRS), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale; HADS), perioperative blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, and complications. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Registry, number 5722 (registration date March 30, 2016), Lumbar Interbody Fusion Trial (LIFT): A randomized controlled multicenter trial for surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Findings: Patients were included between August 2017 and November 2020. The total study population was 161 patients. Total loss-to-follow-up after one year was 16 patients. Per-protocol analysis included 66 patients in each group. In the TLIF group (mean age 61.6, 36 females), ODI improved from 46.7 to 20.7, whereas in the PLIF group (mean age 61.9, 41 females), it improved from 46.0 to 24.9. This difference (−4.9, 90% CI −12.2 to +2.4) did not reach the non-inferiority limit of 7.0 points in ODI. A significant difference in the secondary outcome measurement, QALY (SF-36), was observed in favor of TLIF (P < 0.05). However, this was not clinically relevant. No difference was found for all other secondary outcome measurements; PROMs (EQ-5D, NRS leg/back, HADS), perioperative blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, and perioperative and postoperative complications. Interpretation: For patients with single-level spondylolisthesis, TLIF is non-inferior to PLIF in terms of clinical effectiveness. Disability (measured with ODI) did not differ over time between groups. Funding: No funding was received for this trial

Clinical management of spinal metastases—The Dutch national guideline

This article is a summary of the revised Dutch multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline ‘Spinal metastases’ (English translation available at: https://www.oncoline.nl/spinal-metastases) that was published at the end of 2015. This summary provides an easy-to-use overview for physicians to use in their daily practice

The Dutch national guideline on metastases and hematological malignancies localized within the spine; a multidisciplinary collaboration towards timely and proactive management

textabstractHere, we describe the development of a Dutch national guideline on metastases and hematological malignancies localized within the spine. The aim was to create a comprehensive guideline focusing on proactive management of these diseases, enabling healthcare professionals to weigh patient perspectives, life expectancy, and expected outcomes to make informed treatment recommendations. A national multidisciplinary panel consisting of clinicians, a nurse, a patient advocate, an epidemiologist, and a methodologist drafted the guideline. The important role of patients in the realization of the guideline enabled us to identify and address perceived shortcomings in patient care. The guideline covers not only metastatic epidural spinal cord compression, but also the treatment of uncomplicated metastases and hematological malignancies localized within the spine. The guideline is applicable in daily practice and provides an up-to-date and concise overview of the diagnostic and treatment possibilities for patients suffering from a disease that can have a serious impact on their quality of life. Suggestions for the practical implementation of patient care in hospitals are also provided, including approaches for pursuing proactive management. The crucial role of the patient in decision making is emphasized in this guideline

The Dutch national guideline on metastases and hematological malignancies localized within the spine; a multidisciplinary collaboration towards timely and proactive management

Here, we describe the development of a Dutch national guideline on metastases and hematological malignancies localized within the spine. The aim was to create a comprehensive guideline focusing on proactive management of these diseases, enabling healthcare professionals to weigh patient perspectives, life expectancy, and expected outcomes to make informed treatment recommendations. A national multidisciplinary panel consisting of clinicians, a nurse, a patient advocate, an epidemiologist, and a methodologist drafted the guideline. The important role of patients in the realization of the guideline enabled us to identify and address perceived shortcomings in patient care. The guideline covers not only metastatic epidural spinal cord compression, but also the treatment of uncomplicated metastases and hematological malignancies localized within the spine. The guideline is applicable in daily practice and provides an up-to-date and concise overview of the diagnostic and treatment possibilities for patients suffering from a disease that can have a serious impact on their quality of life. Suggestions for the practical implementation of patient care in hospitals are also provided, including approaches for pursuing proactive management. The crucial role of the patient in decision making is emphasized in this guideline