Citations

ABSTRACT Background Diagnostic interpretation of kidney allograft biopsies using the Banff classification remains variable, but the determinants of this variability are not fully defined. We performed a global, fully digital multi-reader study to identify the principal drivers of disagreement in Banff-based assessment. Methods Thirty-six kidney transplant biopsies were independently scored by 67 renal pathologists on a standardized digital platform. Readers assessed Banff lesions on hematoxylin and eosin, periodic acid–Schiff, and Jones’ silver stains; final diagnostic categories were assigned using prespecified Banff-based decision rules. Interobserver agreement was quantified with Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC) statistics. Determinants of diagnostic agreement were evaluated using pairwise mixed-effects logistic regression, and reader similarity was examined by principal component analysis (PCA) with post hoc molecular annotation. Results Agreement for final diagnostic categories was moderate (Gwet’s AC1, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47–0.63). Lesion-level agreement varied substantially, with lowest agreement for selected threshold-dependent inflammatory or semi-quantitative lesions, including interstitial inflammation in areas of IFTA, peritubular capillaritis and arteriolar hyalinosis. Diagnostic concordance differed markedly across biopsies, indicating strong case-level heterogeneity. In pairwise models, differences in active inflammatory and vascular lesion scoring were the strongest correlates of diagnostic disagreement; reader experience and geography contributed minimally. Principal component analysis showed reader variation was organized along two dominant axes: a rejection-calling threshold axis linked mainly to tubulointerstitial inflammatory injury, and a T cell-mediated (TCMR/TI) and antibody-mediated/microvascular (AMR/MVI) inflammation-oriented phenotypic classification axis. Conclusion Interobserver variation in Banff-based kidney transplant biopsy assessment is structured rather than random and driven mainly by how readers threshold and integrate key inflammatory lesion compartments rather than experience or geographic location.

Study Design: Case Series and Technical Note, Objective: UBS has been extensively used in open surgery. However, the use of UBS during UBESS has not been reported in the literature. The aim of this study was to describe a new spinal surgical technique using an ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) during unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery (UBESS) and to report the preliminary results of this technique. Methods: We enrolled patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent single-level UBESS. All patients were followed up for more than 12 months. A unilateral laminotomy was performed after bilateral decompression under endoscopy. We used the UBS system after direct visualization of the target for a bone cut. We evaluated the demographic characteristics, diagnosis, operative time, and estimated blood loss of the patients. Clinical outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the modified MacNab criteria, and postoperative complications. Results: A total of twenty patients (five males and fifteen females) were enrolled in this study. The mean follow-up period was 13.2 months (range 12–17 months). The VAS score, ODI, and modified MacNab criteria classification improved after the surgery. A minimal mean blood loss of 22.1 mL was noted during the operation. Only one patient experienced neuropraxia, which resolved within 2 weeks. There was no durotomy, iatrogenic pars fracture, or infection. Conclusions: In conclusion, our study represents the first report of the use of UBS during UBESS. Our findings demonstrate that this technique is safe and efficient, with improved clinical outcomes and minimal complications. These preliminary results warrant further investigation through larger clinical studies with longer follow-up periods to confirm the effectiveness of this technique in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Introduction: The relative performance of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among Medicare beneficiaries in routine clinical practice has not been established. Objective: To compare the performance of CAS relative to CEA among Medicare beneficiaries. Methods: We linked Medicare data (2000-2009) to the Society for Vascular Surgery’s Vascular Registry (SVS-VR; 2005-2008) and to the NCDR® Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy Registry (CARE; 2006-2008/9). Medicare patients aged ≥66 years undergoing CAS or CEA were followed from the procedure date for the outcomes of death, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI) or a composite endpoint for these outcomes. We derived high-dimensional propensity scores using registry and Medicare data to control for patient-level factors and adjusted for provider-level factors including past-year CAS/CEA physician and hospital volume, hospital ownership, teaching affiliation, and hospital size in a Cox regression model comparing CAS to CEA. Results: Among 5,254 SVS-VR (1,999 CAS and 3,255 CEA) and 4,055 CARE (2,824 CAS and 1,231 CEA) patients, CAS patients were more often at higher surgical risk (SVS-VR: 96.7% vs. 44.5%; CARE: 71.3% vs. 44.7%) and had a higher comorbidity burden. Crude outcome risks for death and stroke/TIA were lower for CEA. Adjusting for patient-level factors drove estimates downwards for CAS relative to CEA but only after further adjustment for provider-level factors did the performance of CAS and CEA become comparable on all outcomes (figure 1). Conclusion: Performance of CAS and CEA among Medicare beneficiaries was comparable after accounting for patient- and provider-level factors, which is consistent with landmark trials. Further studies are needed to understand the role of heterogeneity in provider-level characteristics.