Neurosurgery
-
Multicenter Study
Microsurgical Obliteration of Craniocervical Junction Dural Arteriovenous Fistulas: Multicenter Experience.
Dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVFs) located at craniocervical junction are extremely rare (1%-2% of intracranial/spinal dAVFs). Their angio-architectural complexity renders endovascular embolization to be challenging given multiple small feeders with risk of embolysate reflux into vertebral artery and limited transvenous access. The available literature discussing microsurgery for these lesions is limited to few case reports. ⋯ Craniocervical dAVFs represent rare entity of lesions presenting most commonly with hemorrhage or myelopathy because of venous congestion. Microsurgery using a far lateral approach provides robust exposure and visualization for these lesions and allows obliteration of the arterialized draining vein intradurally as close as possible to the fistula point. This approach was associated with a high rate of angiographic cure and favorable clinical outcomes.
-
The Knosp criteria have been the historical standard for predicting cavernous sinus invasion, and therefore extent of surgical resection, of pituitary macroadenomas. Few studies have sought to reappraise the utility of this tool after recent advances in visualization and modeling of tumors in complex endoscopic surgery. ⋯ Increasing use of volumetric 3D imaging may better anticipate extent of resection compared with the Knosp grade metric and may have a greater positive predictive value for GTR. More research is needed to validate these findings and implement them using automated methods.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin Have Clinical Utility (TRIAL-STIM)? 36-Month Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Screening trials before full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation device are recommended by clinical guidelines and regulators, although there is limited evidence for their use. The TRIAL-STIM study showed that a screening trial strategy does not provide superior patient pain outcome at 6-month follow-up compared with not doing a screening trial and that it was not cost-effective. ⋯ The long-term results show no patient outcome benefit in undertaking an SCS screening trial.