Xu, Risheng

OBJECTIVE Phenotypic differences between moyamoya disease (MMD) and moyamoya syndrome (MMS) remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether such differences exist when presentation, procedure-related, and outcome variables are compared quantitatively. METHODS The study cohort included 185 patients with moyamoya presenting to the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions between 1994 and 2015. Baseline demographic, angiographic, and clinical characteristics were compared between patients with MMS and MMD, in addition to procedure-related complications and length of stay (LOS) after surgery. Stroke-free survival was compared between both disease variants after diagnosis. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to compare stroke-free survival between surgically treated and conservatively managed hemispheres in both types of disease, while evaluating interaction between disease variant and management. RESULTS The cohort consisted of 137 patients with MMD (74%) with a bimodal age distribution and 48 patients with MMS (26%) who were mostly under 18 years of age (75%). Underlying diseases included sickle cell disease (48%), trisomy 21 (12%), neurofibromatosis (23%), and other disorders (17%). Patients with MMS were younger (p < 0.001) and less likely to be female (p = 0.034). Otherwise, baseline characteristics were statistically comparable. The rate of surgical complications was 33% in patients with MMD and 16% in patients with MMS (p = 0.097). Both groups of patients had a similar LOS after surgery (p = 0.823). Survival analysis (n = 330 hemispheres) showed similar stroke-free survival after diagnosis (p = 0.856) and lower stroke hazard in surgically managed patients in both MMD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.29, p = 0.028) and MMS (HR 0.62, p = 0.586). The disease variant (MMD vs MMS) did not affect the relationship between management approach (surgery vs conservative) and stroke hazard (p = 0.787). CONCLUSIONS MMD and MMS have largely comparable clinical and angiographic phenotypes with analogously favorable responses to surgical revascularization.

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to answer 2 key questions: (1) What is the clinical presentation and probability of symptomatic improvement following treatment for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of the spine? (2) What is the overall survival of patients diagnosed with spinal metastases from RCC? Methods: A literature review was performed to identify articles that reported on survival, clinical outcomes, and/or prognostic factors in the RCC population with spinal metastases from 1986 to 2016. Results: Forty-eight articles (807 patients) were included. The Fuhrman Nuclear Grade has been significantly associated with survival in previous studies but was underpowered in the current study. The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Score (MSKCC/Motzer) was also underpowered in the current study. From the time of spinal metastasis, the mean and median survival for patients with previously diagnosed primary RCC was 8.75 and 11.7 months, respectively, whereas synchronously diagnosed patients (primary RCC and spinal metastasis) had a mean and median survival of 6.75 and 11 months, respectively. Patients with a “low” (0-8), “intermediate” (9-11), or “high” (12-15) revised Tokuhashi score at initial presentation had a median survival of 5.4, 11.7, and 32.9 months, respectively. Conclusion: Patients with either a synchronous or latent diagnosis of RCC survived greater than 6 months from the time of presentation. Initial Furhman grade, Tokuhashi score, and MSKCC/Motzer can be useful tools in informing patient-specific prognosis for those with metastatic RCC of the spine.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to report the long-term clinical outcomes following 3- and 4-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS A retrospective review of all adult neurosurgical patients undergoing elective ACDF for degenerative disease at a single institution between 1996 and 2013 was performed. Patients who underwent first-time 3- or 4-level ACDF were included; patients with previous cervical spine surgery, those undergoing anterior/posterior approaches, and those with corpectomy were excluded. Outcome measures included perioperative complication rates, fusion rates, need for revision surgery, Nurick Scores, Odom's criteria, symptom resolution, neck visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and persistent narcotics usage. RESULTS Seventy-one patients who underwent 3-level ACDF and 26 patients who underwent 4-level ACDF were identified and followed for an average of 7.6 ± 4.2 years. There was 1 case (3.9%) of deep wound infection in the 4-level group and 1 case in the 3-level group (1.4%; p = 0.454). Postoperatively, 31% of patients in the 4-level group complained of dysphagia, compared with 12.7% in the 3-level group (p = 0.038). The fusion rate was 84.6% after 4-level ACDF and 94.4% after 3-level ACDF (p = 0.122). At last follow-up, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the 4-level group continued to have axial neck pain (53.8%) than in the 3-level group (31%; p = 0.039); the daily oral morphine equivalent dose was significantly higher in the 4-level group (143 ± 97 mg/day) than in the 3-level group (25 ± 10 mg/day; p = 0.030). Outcomes based on Odom's criteria were also different between cohorts (p = 0.044), with a significantly lower proportion of patients in the 4-level ACDF group experiencing an excellent/good outcome. CONCLUSIONS In this study, patients who underwent 4-level ACDF had significantly higher rates of dysphagia, postoperative neck pain, and postoperative narcotic usage when compared with patients who underwent 3-level ACDF. Pseudarthrosis and deep wound infection rates were also higher in the 4-level group, although this did not reach statistical significance. Additionally, a smaller proportion of patients achieved a good/excellent outcome in the 4-level group than in the 3-level group. These findings suggest a significant increase of perioperative morbidity and worsened outcomes for patients who undergo 4- versus 3-level ACDF.