Surgical Outcomes in Patients with Congenital Cervical Spinal Stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the differences in surgical outcomes of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy with and without congenital cervical spinal stenosis (CCSS). METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained to conduct a retrospective chart review of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy who underwent decompression and fusion surgeries from 2010-2016 at a single institution. CCSS was identified using the Torg-Pavlov ratio on lateral cervical radiographs. Pre- and postoperative outcome measures were assessed using the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) and the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). RESULTS: Of 208 patients, Torg-Pavlov ratio identified 85 patients with CCSS. There were no significant differences between the CCSS patient and control patient groups in EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire and mJOA scores at all 4 designated time points in the study (preoperative, earliest postoperative, 6 month postoperative, and 1 year postoperative). Although not statistically significantly, there was a notable trend for patients with CCSS to be less likely to have mJOA-defined severe myelopathy at the postoperative (odds ratio [OR], 0.75; P = 0.38), 6 month postoperative (OR, 0.66; P = 0.20), and 1 year postoperative (OR, 0.64; P = 0.14) time points. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperatively, compared with non-CCSS patients, patients with congenital cervical stenosis reported equal quality of life for all markers. Our findings suggest that in patients with CCSS and relatively mild symptoms of myelopathy, equal consideration should be given for surgical intervention. The findings of this study warrant further large-scale, multi-institutional investigation to further understand the generalizability of these surgical outcome results

Corrigendum to ‘Surgical Outcomes in Patients with Congenital Cervical Spinal Stenosis’ [World Neurosurgery 141 (2020) e645-e650] (World Neurosurgery (2020) 141(e645-e650) (S1878875020312250), (10.1016/j.wneu.2020.05.252))

© 2020 Elsevier Inc. The authors regret that the author Bryan S. Lee, M.D. was incorrectly omitted from the final publication. The author list should read as follows: Karam Atli, Vikram Chakravarthy, Aleem I. Khan, Bryan S. Lee, Don Moore, Michael P. Steinmetz, Thomas E. Mroz. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused

Anti-Inflammatory Activities of Pentaherbs formula and Its Influence on Gut Microbiota in Allergic Asthma

Allergic asthma is a highly prevalent airway inflammatory disease, which involves the interaction between the immune system, environmental and genetic factors. Co-relation between allergic asthma and gut microbiota upon the change of diet have been widely reported, implicating that oral intake of alternative medicines possess a potential in the management of allergic asthma. Previous clinical, in vivo, and in vitro studies have shown that the Pentaherbs formula (PHF) comprising five traditional Chinese herbal medicines Lonicerae Flos, Menthae Herba, Phellodendri Cortex, Moutan Cortex, and Atractylodis Rhizoma possesses an anti-allergic and anti-inflammatory potential through suppressing various immune effector cells. In the present study, to further investigate the anti-inflammatory activities of PHF in allergic asthma, intragastrical administration of PHF was found to reduce airway hyperresponsiveness, airway wall remodeling and goblet cells hyperplasia in an ovalbumin (OVA)-induced allergic asthma mice model. PHF also significantly suppressed pulmonary eosinophilia and asthma-related cytokines IL-4 and IL-33 in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid. In addition, PHF modulated the splenic regulatory T cells population, up-regulated regulatory interleukin (IL)-10 in serum, altered the microbial community structure and the short chain fatty acids content in the gut of the asthmatic mice. This study sheds light on the anti-inflammatory activities of PHF on allergic asthma. It also provides novel in vivo evidence that herbal medicines can ameliorate symptoms of allergic diseases may potentially prevent the development of subsequent atopic disorder such as allergic asthma through the influence of the gut microbiota

Feasibility pilot trial for the Trajectories of Recovery after Intravenous propofol versus inhaled VolatilE anesthesia (THRIVE) pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Introduction Millions of patients receive general anaesthesia for surgery annually. Crucial gaps in evidence exist regarding which technique, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhaled volatile anaesthesia (INVA), yields superior patient experience, safety and outcomes. The aim of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large comparative effectiveness trial assessing patient experiences and outcomes after receiving propofol TIVA or INVA.Methods and analysis This protocol was cocreated by a diverse team, including patient partners with personal experience of TIVA or INVA. The design is a 300-patient, two-centre, randomised, feasibility pilot trial. Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway will be eligible. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to propofol TIVA or INVA, stratified by centre and procedural complexity. The feasibility endpoints include: (1) proportion of patients approached who agree to participate; (2) proportion of patients who receive their assigned randomised treatment; (3) completeness of outcomes data collection and (4) feasibility of data management procedures. Proportions and 95% CIs will be calculated to assess whether prespecified thresholds are met for the feasibility parameters. If the lower bounds of the 95% CI are above the thresholds of 10% for the proportion of patients agreeing to participate among those approached and 80% for compliance with treatment allocation for each randomised treatment group, this will suggest that our planned pragmatic 12 500-patient comparative effectiveness trial can likely be conducted successfully. Other feasibility outcomes and adverse events will be described.Ethics and dissemination This study is approved by the ethics board at Washington University (IRB# 202205053), serving as the single Institutional Review Board for both participating sites. Recruitment began in September 2022. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media.Trial registration number NCT05346588