Citations

Abstract Background An escape room is a cooperative game that has been adapted into medical education and major academic conferences. Methods We describe the design, development, and implementation of an educational ID-themed escape room activity entitled “Out-BREAK!” at an international conference, IDWeek 2023. An anonymous survey was conducted to collect demographic data, assess participant satisfaction with the escape room puzzles, and gauge participant interest in game-based learning. Results Thirty escape room sessions were held over 3 days and included 201 participants. Escape room survey respondents (n = 132) were younger and more likely to be trainees compared with in-person IDWeek attendants. Among 131 responses, all respondents enjoyed the experience and would recommend the escape room activity to friends. Survey respondents enjoyed the puzzle solving (93%), medical content (92%), and team building (79%) components. Only 35% of the respondents had ever previously participated in game-based learning; 95% thought the escape room was a valuable teaching method. Among the 72 survey respondents involved in medical education, almost all (90%) said they were interested in incorporating escape rooms into medical education. Conclusions The Out-BREAK! escape room at IDWeek 2023 was successfully implemented and well received. Despite only a third of participants having prior experience with game-based learning, almost all respondents perceived the escape room to be an effective teaching method.

ABSTRACTIntroductionLung transplantation has become increasingly utilized in patients with COVID‐19. While several single‐center and UNOS database studies have been published on lung transplants (LTs) for end‐stage lung disease (ESLD) from Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), there is a lack of multi‐center and international data.MethodsThis is a multicenter analysis from 11 high‐volume lung transplant centers in the United States and Europe. Data were collected through the Multi‐Institutional ECLS Registry and stratified by ESLD due to COVID‐19 versus other etiologies. Demographics and clinical variables were compared using Chi‐square test and Fisher's exact test. Survival was assessed by Kaplan‐Meier curves and compared by log‐rank test with propensity score matching.ResultsOf 1606 lung transplant recipients, 46 (2.9%) were transplanted for ESLD from COVID‐19 compared to 1560 (97.1%) without a history of COVID‐19. Among COVID‐19 patients, 30 (65.2%) had COVID‐19‐associated ARDS and 16 (34.8%) had post‐COVID‐19 fibrosis. COVID‐19 patients had higher lung allocation scores (78.0 vs. 44.4, p < 0.0001), had severely limited functional status (37.0% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.0001), had higher preoperative ECMO usage (65.2% vs. 5.4%, p < 0.0001), and spent less time on the waitlist (32 vs. 137 days, p < 0.0001). A 30‐day survival was comparable between COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 patients before (100% vs. 98.7%, p = 0.39) and after propensity matching (p = 0.15).ConclusionsPatients who received LTs due to COVID‐19 had short‐term survival comparable to that of patients without COVID‐19. Our findings support the idea that lung transplantation should be considered for select patients with ESLD due to COVID‐19.

ImportancePatients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headaches (CM-MOH) represent a particularly burdened subpopulation. This trial provides first, to our knowledge, American Academy of Neurology class I evidence for a preventive therapy in CM-MOH.ObjectiveTo assess erenumab efficacy and safety in patients with nonopioid CM-MOH.Design, Settings, and ParticipantsThis randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial took place at 67 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia from October 7, 2019, to November 2, 2022. This report reflects the primary analysis conducted in January 2023, using a database snapshot from December 1, 2022, which contains the complete dataset of the double-blind treatment period (DBTP). Participants included adults with CM-MOH who had 1 or more preventive treatment failure(s). There were 992 participants screened and 620 participants enrolled (584 in nonopioid cohort and 36 in opioid cohort)InterventionsErenumab, 70 mg, 140 mg, or placebo, once monthly for 24 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary end point was MOH remission at month 6. Secondary end points included change from baseline in mean monthly acute headache medication days (AHMD) at month 6 and sustained MOH remission throughout the DBTP. Safety end points were adverse events and changes in vital signs.ResultsThe primary analysis population included 584 participants in the nonopioid-treated cohort with a mean age of 44 years and 482 participants were female (82.5%). Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were balanced across groups. At month 6, 134 participants in the erenumab, 140 mg group (69.1%) (odds ratio [OR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.33-3.05; P &amp;lt; .001 vs placebo) and 117 in the erenumab, 70 mg group (60.3%) (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.92-2.05; P = .13 vs placebo) achieved MOH remission vs 102 participants in the placebo group (52.6%). AHMD use was also reduced in the erenumab groups vs placebo. Least squares mean (standard error) change from baseline in average monthly AHMD was –9.4 (0.4) days in the erenumab, 140 mg group (difference from placebo, –2.7; 95% CI, –3.9 to –1.6; P &amp;lt; .001) and –7.8 (0.4) days in the erenumab, 70 mg group (difference from placebo, –1.2; 95% CI, –2.4 to –0.1; P = .03), vs –6.6 (0.4) days in the placebo group. MOH remission throughout the DBTP was sustained in 119 participants (61.3%,) 96 participants (49.5%), and 73 participants (37.6%) in the erenumab, 140 mg, 70 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of erenumab. Treatment-emergent adverse events incidence in the combined erenumab group was 66.8% (259 participants; constipation 15.2% (59 participants) and COVID-19 13.9% (54 participants) were most common.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, monthly, 140 mg, erenumab injections safely and effectively achieved MOH remission in patients with nonopioid CM-MOH within 6 months.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03971071

Objective Computer-based auditory training (CBAT) has been shown to improve outcomes in adult cochlear implant (CI) users. This study evaluates in new CI users whether starting CBAT within 3 months of activation or later impacts CI outcomes. Study Design Prospective natural experiment. Setting Tertiary academic medical center. Patients Sixty-five new adult CI users. Interventions CBAT use over the first-year postactivation. Main Outcome Measures Speech recognition scores and CIQOL-35 Profile score improvements between CI recipients who started CBAT resources early (<3 mo) and late (3–12 mo) postactivation. Results A total of 43 CI recipients started using CBAT within 3 months postactivation (early) and 22 after 3 months (late). Patients who used CBAT within 3 months postactivation showed significantly greater improvement in consonant-nucleus-consonant words (CNCw) (48.3 ± 24.2% vs 27.8 ± 24.9%; d = 0.84), AzBio Sentences in quiet (55.1 ± 28.0% vs 35.7 ± 36.5%; d = 0.62), and CIQOL-35 listening domain scores (18.2 ± 16.3 vs 6.9 ± 12.9, d = 0.73 [0.023, 1.43]), at 3 months postactivation, compared to those who had not yet initiated CBAT. However, by 12 months postactivation, after which all CI recipients had started CBAT, there were no differences observed between patients who started CBAT early or late in speech recognition scores (CNCw: d = 0.26 [−0.35, 0.88]; AzBio: d = 0.37 [−0.23, 0.97]) or in any CIQOL global or domain score (d-range = 0.014–0.47). Conclusions Auditory training with self-directed computer software (CBAT) may yield speech recognition and quality-of-life benefits for new adult CI recipients. While early users showed greater improvement in outcomes at 3 months postactivation than users who started later, both groups achieved similar benefits by 12 months postactivation.

BACKGROUND: The supraglottic airway device (SGD) was introduced as a breakthrough in airway management. The Fastrach emerged as the first commercially available intubating SGD, drawing extensive investigation. I-gel is a more recent device that has gained popularity, can be used as an intubating SGD, and replaced Fastrach in many institutions. However, there is uncertainty regarding the comparison between these devices in terms of efficacy for intubation and ventilation, and safety in an airway rescue situation. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing I-gel and Fastrach SGD in adult patients undergoing intubation. The primary outcome was the first-pass success rate for tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes were tracheal intubation time, SGD insertion time and success, and complications. We computed risk ratios (RRs) to assess binary end points and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the primary outcome and its subgroup analysis ( P < .05 was considered statistically significant) and 99% CI after Bonferroni correction for the secondary outcomes ( P < .01 was considered statistically significant). RESULTS: This study included a total of 14 RCTs encompassing 1340 patients. The results indicated a significant difference in the first-pass success rate favoring Fastrach (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67–0.98; P = .03; I² = 91%). In the subgroup analysis, when a flexible scope was utilized through I-gel, providers achieved a better tracheal intubation first-pass success rate (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01–1.11; P = .03; I² = 0%), compared with the Fastrach. Overall intubation success rates (RR, 0.92; 99% CI, 0.82–1.04; P = .08, I² = 92%) and time (WMD - 1.03 seconds; 99% CI, -4.75 to 2.69; P = .48; I² = 84%) showed no significant difference irrespective of the device used. There was no significant difference regarding device insertion time by the providers (WMD -6.48 seconds; 99% CI, -13.23 to 0.27; P = .01; I 2 = 98%). Success rates of the providers’ initial SGD insertion and complications such as sore throat (RR, 1.01; 99% CI, 0.65–1.57; P = .95, I² = 33%) and blood presence post-SGD removal (RR, 0.89; 99% CI, 0.42–1.86; P = .68, I² = 0%) showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, a higher first-pass success rate was observed with the use of Fastrach when compared to I-gel. However, the use of I-gel might result in a better intubation success rate with the flexible scope-guided intubation. There are no significant differences in performance in terms of the success rate for intubation overall, time for device insertion, or time to intubation or complications regardless of the device used.

OBJECTIVE Chordomas are rare tumors that originate from undifferentiated remnants of the notochord. Currently, there are no established guidelines regarding the choice of adjuvant radiation modality for patients surgically treated for chordomas. Using a nationwide, multicenter database, the authors aimed to compare long-term survival outcomes associated with the use of proton or photon adjuvant therapy for the management of chordomas of skull base and spine. METHODS The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for chordoma cases from 2004 to 2017. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were extracted from the database. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were conducted to investigate differences in outcome on propensity score–matched cohorts of patients treated with proton or photon adjuvant radiotherapy. RESULTS Of the 3490 patients available, 424 met the inclusion criteria for this study. In the prematching analysis, patients receiving adjuvant photon therapy were significantly older (median age 57.0 vs 45.0 years, p < 0.001) and were more commonly male (61% vs 43%, p < 0.001) compared with those receiving proton therapy. Races were equally distributed among radiotherapy modalities (p = 0.64). Patients with chordomas of the mobile spine or sacrum were less likely to receive proton compared with photon therapy (37% vs 58%). Patients receiving proton therapy were more often represented among private insurance holders (69% vs 52%, p < 0.001) as well as in the highest income quartile (52% vs 40%, p = 0.008). Patients traveled farther to receive proton, as opposed to photon, therapy (median 59.0 vs 34.9 miles, p < 0.001). On postmatching Kaplan-Meier analysis encompassing all chordoma cases, no difference in OS between photon and proton therapy was revealed (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.39–1.44; p = 0.39). A Kaplan-Meier analysis only including patients with skull base chordomas reached similar results (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.31–2.22; p = 0.71). In patients with spine chordomas, however, a significant difference was found, as proton therapy exhibited a superior OS over photon therapy (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09–0.81; p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS Based on this nationwide analysis, patients with private insurance and higher income were more likely to receive proton adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with spinal or sacral chordomas were less likely to receive this modality. Despite this disparity, an OS benefit was observed in patients with chordomas of the spine and sacrum who received adjuvant proton therapy, in comparison with a matched cohort of patients treated with photon therapy. Conversely, this advantageous outcome was not evident in cases of chordomas located at the skull base.

This review systematically examines the recent research from the past decade on diverse path-planning algorithms tailored for stereotactic neurosurgery applications. Our comprehensive investigation involved a thorough search of scholarly papers from Google Scholar, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and Scopus, utilizing stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria. The screening and selection process was meticulously conducted by a multidisciplinary team comprising three medical students, robotic experts with specialized knowledge in path-planning techniques and medical robotics, and a board-certified neurosurgeon. Each selected paper was reviewed in detail, and the findings were synthesized and reported in this review. The paper is organized around three different types of intervention tools: straight needles, steerable needles, and concentric tube robots. We provide an in-depth analysis of various path-planning algorithms applicable to both single and multi-target scenarios. Multi-target planning techniques are only discussed for straight tools as there is no published work on multi-target planning for steerable needles and concentric tube robots. Additionally, we discuss the imaging modalities employed, the critical anatomical structures considered during path planning, and the current status of research regarding its translation to clinical human studies. To the best of our knowledge and as a conclusion from this systematic review, this is the first review paper published in the last decade that reports various path-planning techniques for different types of tools for minimally invasive neurosurgical applications. Furthermore, this review outlines future trends and identifies existing technology gaps within the field. By highlighting these aspects, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview that can guide future research and development in path planning for stereotactic neurosurgery, ultimately contributing to the advancement of safer and more effective neurosurgical procedures.

OBJECTIVE Surgical decompression is often indicated for symptomatic cases of cervical radiculopathy. In the cervical spine, minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MIS-PCF) and the anterior transcorporeal approach (ATCA) are modern techniques available to surgeons. This systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis aimed to assess surgical and patient-reported outcomes of MIS-PCF and ATCA for cervical radiculopathy. METHODS A systematic review of the literature was conducted using 1) Ovid; 2) Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations; and 3) Scopus databases, which reported outcomes following cervical decompression using MIS-PCF or the ATCA. Specifically, baseline characteristics, operative outcomes, and changes in visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain score were assessed. The quality of the studies was graded using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. RESULTS Forty studies with 1661 patients were identified. The comparative analysis of both techniques revealed no significant differences in complication (7%, 95% CI 5%–10%, p = 0.75) or reoperation rates (5%, 95% CI 3%–7%, p = 0.41). Additionally, there were no significant differences in estimated blood loss (55.39, 95% CI 44.62–66.16 ml, p = 0.55) or operative time (85.15, 95% CI 65.38–104.92 minutes, p = 0.05). The ATCA showed significantly greater improvement (p < 0.01) in VAS neck pain scores following surgery (ATCA point reduction 6.7, 95% CI 6.0–7.5 points vs MIS-PCF 3.0, 95% CI 1.0–5.0 points). CONCLUSIONS The ATCA and MIS-PCF are effective modern techniques for the surgical treatment of radiculopathy. Both approaches showed comparable postoperative outcomes, including complication and reoperation rates. However, the ATCA was shown to provide significantly greater improvement in VAS neck pain scores.