Yolcu, Yagiz

Abstract BACKGROUND Degenerative spondylolisthesis is the displacement of one vertebral body over the adjacent one. While standing and flexion-extension X-rays are preferred for determining listhesis, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often utilized to assess the compression of nerve root or spinal cord. OBJECTIVE To investigate the difference in radiographic measurements of spondylolisthesis between X-rays and MRI. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the records and radiographic images of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of spondylolisthesis undergoing operation in 2016. Primary variable of interest was the degree of slippage as per the Meyerding method. Agreement between the 2 reviewers was assessed using the 2-way intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for slippage percentage and Cohen's Kappa for grade. Agreement of Meyerding grade between the 2 imaging techniques was assessed using Cohen's Kappa, while the slip percentage measured for each technique was compared using a Bland-Altman (BA) plot, mean difference (MD), and 1-way ICC. RESULTS A total of 255 cases were analyzed. ICC between the 2 reviewers was found to be 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.83, P < .001) for X-ray and 0.76 (95% CI = 0.66-0.83, P < .001) for MRI. Agreement between X-ray and MRI for grading of spondylolisthesis was found to be poor (kappa = 0.32, P < .001). BA plot between X-ray and MRI measurements revealed an MD of 4.4% (95% limits of agreement: –10.3% to 19.3%) with 5.16% observations outside the limits of agreement and 1-way ICC of 0.35 showing poor agreement. Conclusion Our results demonstrate the discrepancy of spondylolisthesis grade measurements between weight-bearing X-ray and nonweight-bearing MRI. Careful evaluation of both imaging technique is warranted to determine the final severity of pathology and tailoring of management plan.

Abstract BACKGROUND Use of large databases such as the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) has become increasingly common in neurosurgical research. OBJECTIVE To perform a critical appraisal and evaluation of the methodological reporting for studies in neurosurgical literature that utilize the ACS-NSQIP database. METHODS We queried Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases for all neurosurgical studies utilizing the ACS-NSQIP. We assessed each study according to number of criteria fulfilled with respect to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement, REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Health Data (RECORD) Statement, and Journal of American Medical Association–Surgical Section (JAMA-Surgery) Checklist. A separate analysis was conducted among papers published in core and noncore journals in neurosurgery according to Bradford's law. RESULTS A total of 117 studies were included. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) scores for number of fulfilled criteria for STROBE Statement, RECORD Statement, and JAMA-Surgery Checklist were 20 (IQR:19-21), 9 (IQR:8-9), and 6 (IQR:5-6), respectively. For STROBE Statement, RECORD Statement, and JAMA-Surgery Checklist, item 9 (potential sources of bias), item 13 (supplemental information), and item 9 (missing data/sensitivity analysis) had the highest number of studies with no fulfillment among all studies (56, 68, 50%), respectively. When comparing core journals vs noncore journals, no significant difference was found (STROBE, P = .94; RECORD, P = .24; JAMA-Surgery checklist, P = .60). CONCLUSION While we observed an overall satisfactory reporting of methodology, most studies lacked mention of potential sources of bias, data cleaning methods, supplemental information, and external validity. Given the pervasive role of national databases and registries for research and health care policy, the surgical community needs to ensure the credibility and quality of such studies that ultimately aim to improve the value of surgical care delivery to patients.

Abstract BACKGROUND Surgical site infections (SSIs) after spine and brain surgery present a major burden to patients and hospitals by increasing morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE To review available literature investigating the role of intrawound powdered vancomycin against SSIs after neurosurgical operations. METHODS All randomized and observational English language studies of intrawound powdered vancomycin use in spinal and cranial surgery were included and analyzed using random-effects modeling. RESULTS In spine surgery (25 studies with 16 369 patients), patients in the vancomycin group had a significantly lower risk for any SSI (odds ratio [OR]: 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30-0.57; P < .001; I 2 = 47%). However, when separate analyses were conducted for superficial and deep SSIs, a significant difference was found only for deep (OR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.22-0.45; P < .001; I 2 = 29%). Subgroup analyses for different vancomycin powder dosages (1 g vs 2 g vs composite dose) did not point to any dose-related effect of vancomycin. In cranial surgery (6 studies with 1777 patients), use of vancomycin was associated with a significantly lower risk for SSIs (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.18-0.60; P = .0003; I 2 = 45%). In meta-regression analysis, trial-level variability of diabetes had no influence on the association of vancomycin powder use with SSIs. CONCLUSION Use of vancomycin powder in spinal and cranial surgery might be protective against SSIs, especially against deep SSIs. No dose-related effect of vancomycin powder was identified. However, caution is needed in the clinical interpretation of these results, owing to the observational design of the included studies in this meta-analysis.