Akinnusotu, Oluwatoyin

Abstract Introduction: Extracranial vertebral artery aneurysms are rare complications from trauma and multiple diseases. However, the difference between clinical and surgical profiles is not well understood. Objective To investigate the clinical and interventional outcomes following extracranial vertebral artery aneurysms (VAA) treatment through a systematic review of the literature to date. Methods An electronic database search for full-text English articles was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. The search yielded results on clinical and surgical outcomes for extracranial VAAs. These results included patient-specific risk factors, indications, and techniques. Results Our literature search yielded 561 articles, of which 36 studies were qualified to be included in the analysis. A total of 55 patients with multiple various extracranial VAA incidents were included. The mean age of subjects was 42 years (ranging from 13 to 76 years), and most patients were males (71%, n = 39). Blunt trauma was the most frequent risk factor for extracranial VAA formation (35%, n = 19). The majority of aneurysms (60%) were dissecting in nature. The most common form of treatment for extracranial VAAs was a flow diverter (24%, n = 13). Overall, five (9%) patients had long-term adverse neurological complications following intervention with 5% (n = 3) mortality, 2% (n = 1) resulting in unilateral vocal cord paralysis, and 2% (n = 1) resulting in a positive Romberg sign. The mortality rate is 15.7% in the surgical group, whereas the endovascular treatment did not result in any mortality. Conclusion The endovascular approach is a safe and effective treatment of extracranial VAAs due to its relatively low overall complication rate and lack of resulting mortality. This contrasts with the surgical approach, which results in a higher rate of complications, recurrence, and mortality outcomes. An understanding of the factors and clinical outcomes associated with the incidence of extracranial VAAs is essential for the future improvement of patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE Anterior-to-psoas lumbar interbody fusion (ATP-LIF), more commonly referred to as oblique lateral interbody fusion, and lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LTP-LIF), also known as extreme lateral interbody fusion, are the two commonly used lateral approaches for performing a lumbar fusion procedure. These approaches help overcome some of the technical challenges associated with traditional approaches for lumbar fusion. In this systematic review and indirect meta-analysis, the authors compared operative and patient-reported outcomes between these two select approaches using available studies. METHODS Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, the authors conducted an electronic search using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for studies published before May 1, 2019. Indirect meta-analysis was conducted on fusion rate, cage movement (subsidence plus migration), permanent deficits, and transient deficits; results were depicted as forest plots of proportions (effect size [ES]). RESULTS A total of 63 studies were included in this review after applying the exclusion criteria, of which 26 studies investigated the outcomes of ATP-LIF, while 37 studied the outcomes of LTP-LIF. The average fusion rate was found to be similar between the two groups (ES 0.97, 95% CI 0.84–1.00 vs ES 0.94, 95% CI 0.91–0.97; p = 0.561). The mean incidence of cage movement was significantly higher in the ATP-LIF group compared with the LTP-LIF group (stand-alone: ES 0.15, 95% CI 0.06–0.27 vs ES 0.09, 95% CI 0.04–0.16 [p = 0.317]; combined: ES 0.18, 95% CI 0.07–0.32 vs ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.00–0.05 [p = 0.002]). The mean incidence of reoperations was significantly higher in patients undergoing ATP-LIF than in those undergoing LTP-LIF (ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.01–0.03 vs ES 0.04, 95% CI 0.02–0.07; p = 0.012). The mean incidence of permanent deficits was similar between the two groups (stand-alone: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.06 vs ES 0.05, 95% CI 0.01–0.12 [p = 0.204]; combined: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.06 vs ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.00–0.08 [p = 0.595]). The postoperative changes in visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were both found to be higher for ATP-LIF relative to LTP-LIF (VAS: weighted average 4.11 [SD 2.03] vs weighted average 3.75 [SD 1.94] [p = 0.004]; ODI: weighted average 28.3 [SD 5.33] vs weighted average 24.3 [SD 4.94] [p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS These analyses indicate that while both approaches are associated with similar fusion rates, ATP-LIF may be related to higher odds of cage movement and reoperations as compared with LTP-LIF. Furthermore, there is no difference in rates of permanent deficits between the two procedures.

AbstractBackgroundA subset of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is at high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Practice guidelines endorse use of a risk calculator, which requires entry of left atrial (LA) diameter. However, American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) guidelines recommend the use of LA volume index (LAVI) for routine quantification of LA size. The aims of this study were to (a) develop a model to estimate LA diameter from LAVI and (b) evaluate whether substitution of measured LA diameter by estimated LA diameter derived from LAVI reclassifies HCM‐SCD risk.MethodsThe study cohort was comprised of 500 randomly selected HCM patients who underwent transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). LA diameter and LAVI were measured offline using digital clips from TTE. Linear regression models were developed to estimate LA diameter from LAVI. A European Society of Cardiology endorsed equation estimated SCD risk, which was measured using LA diameter and estimated LA diameter derived from LAVI.ResultsThe mean LAVI was 48.5 ± 18.8 mL/m2. The derived LA diameter was 45.1 mm (SD: 5.5 mm), similar to the measured LA diameter (45.1 mm, SD: 7.1 mm). Median SCD risk at 5 years estimated by measured LA diameter was 2.22% (interquartile range (IQR): 1.39, 3.56), while median risk calculated by estimated LA diameter was 2.18% (IQR: 1.44, 3.52). 476/500 (95%) patients maintained the same risk classification regardless of whether the measured or estimated LA diameter was used.ConclusionsSubstitution of measured LA diameter by estimated LA diameter in the HCM‐SCD calculator did not reclassify risk.