De Biase, Gaetano

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nongeneral anesthesia (non-GA) spine surgery is growing in popularity and has facilitated earlier postoperative recovery, reduced cost, and fewer complications compared with spine surgery under general anesthesia (GA). Changes in reimbursement policies have been demonstrated to correlate with clinical practice; however, they have yet to be studied for GA vs non-GA spine procedures. We aimed to investigate trends in physician reimbursement for GA vs non-GA spine surgery in the United States. METHODS: We queried the ACS-NSQIP for GA and non-GA (regional, epidural, spinal, and anesthesia care/intravenous sedation) spine surgeries during 2011–2020. Work relative value units per operative hour (wRVUs/h) were retrieved for decompression or stabilization of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed using all baseline variables. RESULTS: We included 474 706 patients who underwent spine decompression or stabilization procedures. GA was used in 472 248 operations, whereas 2458 operations were non-GA. The proportion of non-GA spine operations significantly increased during the study period. Operative times ( P < .001) and length of stays ( P < .001) were shorter in non-GA when compared with GA procedures. Non-GA lumbar procedures had significantly higher wRVUs/h when compared with the same procedures performed under GA (decompression; P < .001 and stabilization; P = .039). However, the same could not be said about cervicothoracic procedures. Lumbar decompression surgeries using non-GA witnessed significant yearly increase in wRVUs/h ( P < .01) contrary to GA ( P = .72). Physician reimbursement remained stable for procedures of the cervical or thoracic spine regardless of the anesthesia. CONCLUSION: Non-GA lumbar decompressions and stabilizations are associated with higher and increasing reimbursement trends (wRVUs/h) compared with those under GA. Reimbursement for cervical and thoracic surgeries was equal regardless of the type of anesthesia and being relatively stable during the study period. The adoption of a non-GA technique relative to the GA increased significantly during the study period.

BACKGROUND: There has recently been increasing interest in the use of spinal anesthesia (SA) for spine surgery. The literature that compared spine surgery under SA vs general anesthesia (GA) focused on safety, perioperative outcomes, and costs. OBJECTIVE: To test if SA is associated with less postoperative fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and better quality of life in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery compared with GA. METHODS: We conducted a prospective nonrandomized study in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery under SA or GA by a single surgeon. Fatigue was assessed with the fatigue visual analog scale scale (0-10) and Chalder Fatigue Scale, quality of life with Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short Form (SF-12), and differences in cognition with Mini-Mental State Examination. Patients were baselined before surgery and assessed again 1 mo after surgery. RESULTS: Fifty patients completed the study, 25 underwent surgery under SA and 25 under GA. The groups were homogeneous for baseline clinical characteristics, with no differences in preoperative fatigue, quality of life, and cognition. At 1 mo after surgery, SA compared with GA had better fatigue scores: fatigue visual analog scale (2.9 ± 1.5 vs 5.9 ± 2.3 [ P < .0001]) and Chalder Fatigue Scale (11.2 ± 3.1 vs 16.9 ± 3.9 [ P < .0001]). One month postoperatively, we observed a significant difference in the SF-12 physical component, with SA having 38.8 ± 8.9 vs 29.4 ± 10.3 ( P = .002). We did not observe significant postoperative differences in the SF-12 mental component or Mini-Mental State Examination. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that SA offers unique patient-centered advantages to GA for elective spine surgery. One month after surgery, patients who received SA had less postoperative fatigue and better quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Management of degenerative disease of the spine has evolved to favor minimally invasive techniques, including nonrobotic-assisted and robotic-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Value-based spending is being increasingly implemented to control rising costs in the US healthcare system. With an aging population, it is fundamental to understand which procedure(s) may be most cost-effective. OBJECTIVE: To compare robotic and nonrobotic MIS-TLIF through a cost-utility analysis. METHODS: We considered direct medical costs related to surgical intervention and to the hospital stay, as well as 1-yr utilities. We estimated costs by assessing all cases involving adults undergoing robotic surgery at a single institution and an equal number of patients undergoing nonrobotic surgery, matched by demographic and clinical characteristics. We adopted a willingness to pay of $50 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Uncertainty was addressed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Costs were estimated based on a total of 76 patients, including 38 undergoing robot-assisted and 38 matched patients undergoing nonrobot MIS-TLIF. Using point estimates, robotic surgery was projected to cost $21 546.80 and to be associated with 0.68 QALY, and nonrobotic surgery was projected to cost $22 398.98 and to be associated with 0.67 QALY. Robotic surgery was found to be more cost-effective strategy, with cost-effectiveness being sensitive operating room/materials and room costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis identified robotic surgery as cost-effective in 63% of simulations. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that at a willingness to pay of $50 000/QALY, robotic-assisted MIS-TLIF was cost-effective in 63% of simulations. Cost-effectiveness depends on operating room and room (admission) costs, with potentially different results under distinct neurosurgical practices.

OBJECTIVE Awake transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a novel technique for performing spinal fusions in patients under conscious sedation. Whether awake TLIF can reduce operative times and decrease the hospital length of stay (LOS) remains to be shown. In this study, the authors sought to assess the differences in clinical outcomes between patients who underwent awake TLIF and those who underwent TLIF under general anesthesia by using institutional experience at the Mayo Clinic and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. METHODS Chart review was performed for a consecutive series of patients who underwent single-level minimally invasive surgery (MIS)–TLIF performed by a single surgeon (K.A.I.) at a single institution. Additionally, the NSQIP database was queried from 2016 to 2019 for patients who underwent awake TLIF as well as propensity score–matched patients who underwent TLIF under general anesthesia. RESULTS A total of 20 patients at Mayo Clinic underwent awake single-level MIS-TLIF. The mean operative time was 122 ± 16.68 minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 39 ± 30.24 ml. No intraoperative complications were reported. A total of 96 patients who underwent TLIF (24 awake and 72 under general anesthesia) were analyzed from the NSQIP database. The mean LOS was less in the awake cohort (1.4 ± 1.381 days) than the general anesthesia cohort (3 ± 2.274 days) (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Evidence from the authors’ institutional experience and national analysis has demonstrated that awake MIS-TLIF is efficient and can reduce hospital LOS.

OBJECTIVE There has been increasing interest in the use of spinal anesthesia (SA) for spine surgery, especially within Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols. Despite the wide adoption of SA by the orthopedic practices, it has not gained wide acceptance in lumbar spine surgery. Studies investigating SA versus general anesthesia (GA) in lumbar laminectomy and discectomy have found that SA reduces perioperative costs and leads to a reduction in analgesic use, as well as to shorter anesthesia and surgery time. The aim of this retrospective, case-control study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS)–transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) after administration of SA with those who underwent MIS-TLIF under GA. METHODS Overall, 40 consecutive patients who underwent MIS-TLIF by a single surgeon were analyzed; 20 patients received SA and 20 patients received GA. Procedure time, intraoperative adverse events, postoperative adverse events, postoperative length of stay, 3-hour postanesthesia care unit (PACU) numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score, opioid medication, and time to first ambulation were collected for each patient. RESULTS The two groups were homogeneous for clinical characteristics. A decrease in total operating room (OR) time was found for patients who underwent MIS-TLIF after administration of SA, with a mean OR time of 156.5 ± 18.9 minutes versus 213.6 ± 47.4 minutes for patients who underwent MIS-TLIF under GA (p < 0.0001), a reduction of 27%. A decrease in total procedure time was also observed for SA versus GA (122 ± 16.7 minutes vs 175.2 ± 10 minutes; p < 0.0001). No significant differences were found in intraoperative and postoperative adverse events. There was a difference in the mean maximum NRS pain score during the first 3 hours in the PACU as patients who received SA reported a lower pain score compared with those who received GA (4.8 ± 3.5 vs 7.3 ± 2.7; p = 0.018). No significant difference was observed in morphine equivalents received by the two groups. A difference was also observed in the mean overall NRS pain score, with 2.4 ± 2.1 for the SA group versus 4.9 ± 2.3 for the GA group (p = 0.001). Patients who received SA had a shorter time to first ambulation compared with those who received GA (385.8 ± 353.8 minutes vs 855.9 ± 337.4 minutes; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study have pointed to some important observations in this patient population. SA offers unique advantages in comparison with GA for performing MIS-TLIF, including reduced OR time and postoperative pain, and faster postoperative mobilization.

OBJECTIVE Available data on management of sacral arteriovenous fistulas (sAVFs) are limited to individual case reports and small series. Management includes observation, endovascular embolization, or surgical ligation, with no clear guidelines on the optimal treatment modality. The authors’ objective was to report their multiinstitutional experience with management of sAVF patients, including clinical and radiographic characteristics and postprocedural outcomes. METHODS The electronic medical records of patients with a diagnosis of spinal arteriovenous fistula treated from January 2004 to December 2019 at the authors’ institutions were reviewed, and data were summarized using descriptive statistics, including percentage and count for categorical data, median as a measure of central tendency for continuous variables, and interquartile range (IQR) as a measure of dispersion. RESULTS A total of 26 patients with sAVFs were included. The median (IQR) age was 65 (57–73) years, and 73% (n = 19) of patients were male. Lower-extremity weakness was the most common presenting symptom (n = 24 [92%]), and half the patients (n = 13 [50%]) reported bowel and bladder sphincter dysfunction. The median (IQR) time from symptom onset to treatment was 12 (5.25–26.25) months. Radiographically, all patients had T2 hyperintensity at the level of the conus medullaris (CM) (n = 26 [100%]). Intradural flow voids were identified in 85% (n = 22) of patients. The majority of the lesions had a single identifiable arterial feeder (n = 19 [73%]). The fistula was located most commonly at the S1 level (n = 13 [50%]). The site where the draining vein connects to the pial venous plexus was seen predominantly at the lumbar level (n = 16 [62%]). In total, 29 procedures were performed: 10 open surgeries and 19 endovascular embolization procedures. Complete occlusion was achieved in 90% (n = 9) of patients after open surgery and 79% (n = 15) after endovascular embolization. Motor improvement was seen in 68% of patients (n = 15), and bladder and bowel function improved in 9 patients (41%). At last follow-up, 73% (n = 16) of patients had either resolution or improvement of the pretreatment intramedullary T2 signal hyperintensity. CONCLUSIONS T2 hyperintensity of the CM and a dilated filum terminale vein are consistent radiographic signs of sAVF, and delayed presentation is common. Complete occlusion was achieved in almost all patients after surgery, and endovascular embolization was effective in 70% of the patients. Further studies are needed to determine the best treatment modality based on case-specific characteristics.

OBJECTIVE The authors’ goal was to use a multicenter, observational cohort study to determine whether supramarginal resection (SMR) of FLAIR-hyperintense tumor beyond the contrast-enhanced (CE) area influences the overall survival (OS) of patients with isocitrate dehydrogenase–wild-type (IDH-wt) glioblastoma after gross-total resection (GTR). METHODS The medical records of 888 patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent resection of GBM between January 2011 and December 2017 were reviewed. Volumetric measurements of the CE tumor and surrounding FLAIR-hyperintense tumor were performed, clinical variables were obtained, and associations with OS were analyzed. RESULTS In total, 101 patients with newly diagnosed IDH-wt GBM who underwent GTR of the CE tumor met the inclusion criteria. In multivariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years (HR 1.97; 95% CI 1.01–2.56; p < 0.001) and contact with the lateral ventricles (HR 1.59; 95% CI 1.13–1.78; p = 0.025) were associated with shorter OS, but preoperative Karnofsky Performance Status ≥ 70 (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.27–0.89; p = 0.006), MGMT promotor methylation (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.52–0.99; p = 0.044), and increased percentage of SMR (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98–0.99; p = 0.02) were associated with longer OS. Finally, 20% SMR was the minimum percentage associated with beneficial OS (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.35–0.89; p = 0.01), but > 60% SMR had no significant influence (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.45–1.21; p = 0.234). CONCLUSIONS SMR is associated with improved OS in patients with IDH-wt GBM who undergo GTR of CE tumor. At least 20% SMR of the CE tumor was associated with beneficial OS, but greater than 60% SMR had no significant influence on OS.

Abstract BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE Data supporting the use of electrocorticography (ECoG) monitoring during electrical stimulation in awake craniotomies for resection of supratentorial neoplasms is robust, but its applicability during active resection is often limited by the inability to keep the array in place. Given the known survival benefit of gross total resection in glioma surgery, novel approaches to surgical monitoring are warranted to maximize safe resection and optimize surgical outcomes in patients with glioblastoma. CLINICAL PRESENTATION A 68-yr-old right-handed woman presented to the emergency department with confusion. Imaging studies revealed a bifrontal intra-axial brain lesion. She underwent a left-sided awake craniotomy procedure with cortical and subcortical mapping. During surgical resection, multiple electrographic seizures were detected on continuous ECoG monitoring with a customized 22-channel high-density hollow circular array. She remained without clinical evidence of seizures at 3 mo after surgery. CONCLUSION We report a unique case of serial electrographic seizures detected during continuous intraoperative ECoG monitoring during active surgical resection of a glioblastoma using a novel circular hollow array during an awake craniotomy. The use of continuous ECoG monitoring during active resection may provide additional data, with potential influence in outcomes for patients undergoing resection of high-grade glial neoplasms.

Background: During awake craniotomy, securing the patient’s airway might be necessary electively or emergently. The objective of this study was to compare the feasibility of airway management using a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and 4 alternative airway management techniques in an awake craniotomy simulation. Methods: After completing a questionnaire, 9 anesthesia providers attempted airway management in a cadaver positioned to simulate awake craniotomy conditions. Following the simulation, participants rated and ranked the devices in their order of preference. Results: Only 3 approaches resulted in the successful securement of an airway device for 100% of participants: LMA (median; interquartile range time to secure the airway 6 s, 5 to 10 s), fiberoptic bronchoscopy through an LMA (41 s; 23 to 51 s), and video laryngoscopy (49 s; 43 to 127 s). In contrast, the oral and nasal fiberoptic approaches demonstrated only 44.4% (154.5 s; 134.25 to 182 s) and 55.6% (75 s; 50 to 117 s) success rates, respectively. The LMA was the fastest and most reliable primary method to secure the airway (P=0.001). After the simulation, 100% of participants reported that an LMA would be their first choice for emergency airway management, followed by fiberoptic intubation through the LMA (7 of 9 participants) if the LMA failed to properly seat. Conclusions: We demonstrated that an LMA was the fastest and most reliable primary method to secure an airway in a laterally positioned cadaver with 3-pin skull fixation. Fiberoptic and video laryngoscope airway equipment should be readily available during awake craniotomy procedures, and an attempt to visualize the vocal cords through the LMA should be attempted before removing it for alternative techniques.