El-Hajj, Victor Gabriel

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Epilepsy is considered one of the most prevalent and severe chronic neurological disorders worldwide. Our study aims to analyze the national trends in different treatment modalities for individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy and investigate the outcomes associated with these procedural trends in the United States. METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample database from 2010 to 2020, patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy who underwent laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT), open surgical resection, vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), or responsive neurostimulation (RNS) were identified. Trend analysis was performed using piecewise joinpoint regression. Propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes between 10 years prepandemic before 2020 and the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: This study analyzed a total of 33 969 patients with a diagnosis of drug-resistant epilepsy, with 3343 patients receiving surgical resection (78%), VNS (8.21%), RNS (8%), and LITT (6%). Between 2010 and 2020, there was an increase in the use of invasive electroencephalography monitoring for seizure zone localization ( P = .003). There was an increase in the use of LITT and RNS ( P < .001), while the use of surgical resection and VNS decreased over time ( P < .001). Most of these patients (89%) were treated during the pre-COVID pandemic era (2010-2019), while a minority (11%) underwent treatment during the COVID pandemic (2020). After propensity score matching, the rate of pulmonary complications, postprocedural hematoma formation, and mortality were slightly higher during the pandemic compared with the prepandemic period ( P = .045, P = .033, and P = .026, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study indicates a relative decrease in the use of surgical resections, as a treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. By contrast, newer, minimally invasive surgical approaches including LITT and RNS showed gradual increases in usage.

Clinical prediction models for spine surgery applications are on the rise, with an increasing reliance on machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL). Many of the predicted outcomes are uncommon; therefore, to ensure the models’ effectiveness in clinical practice it is crucial to properly evaluate them. This systematic review aims to identify and evaluate current research-based ML and DL models applied for spine surgery, specifically those predicting binary outcomes with a focus on their evaluation metrics. Overall, 60 papers were included, and the findings were reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 13 papers focused on lengths of stay (LOS), 12 on readmissions, 12 on non-home discharge, 6 on mortality, and 5 on reoperations. The target outcomes exhibited data imbalances ranging from 0.44% to 42.4%. A total of 59 papers reported the model’s area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), 28 mentioned accuracies, 33 provided sensitivity, 29 discussed specificity, 28 addressed positive predictive value (PPV), 24 included the negative predictive value (NPV), 25 indicated the Brier score with 10 providing a null model Brier, and 8 detailed the F1 score. Additionally, data visualization varied among the included papers. This review discusses the use of appropriate evaluation schemes in ML and identifies several common errors and potential bias sources in the literature. Embracing these recommendations as the field advances may facilitate the integration of reliable and effective ML models in clinical settings.

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.