Ray, Wilson Z.

OBJECTIVE Core outcome sets (COSs) are needed to promote data consistency across studies as well as data synthesis and comparability. The aim of the current study was to use a modified Delphi process to develop a COS for lateral femoral cutaneous neuropathy (LFCN), hereafter COS-LFCN. METHODS A 5-stage approach was used to develop the COS-LFCN: 1) consortium development, 2) literature review to identify potential outcome measures, 3) Delphi survey to develop consensus on outcomes for inclusion, 4) Delphi survey to develop definitions, and 5) consensus meeting to finalize the COS and definitions. This study followed the Core Outcome Set - STAndards for Development, (COS-STAD) recommendations. RESULTS The Core Outcomes in Nerve Surgery (COINS) Consortium comprised 25 participants, all neurological surgeons, representing 14 countries. The final COS-LFCN consisted of 41 factors and outcomes covering domains of demographics, diagnostics, patient-reported outcomes, motor/sensory outcomes, and complications. Appropriate instruments, methods of testing, and definitions were set. The consensus minimum duration of follow-up was 12 months, with the consensus optimal time points for assessment being preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS The COINS Consortium developed a consensus COS for LFCN and provided definitions, methods of implementation, and time points for assessment. The COS-LFCN should serve as the minimum data to be collected in all future neurosurgical studies on LFCN. Incorporation of this COS will help improve consistency in reporting, data synthesis and comparability, and minimize outcome reporting bias.

OBJECTIVE Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an established treatment for cervical degenerative disc disease; however, the procedure can cause loss of cervical spine range of motion and potentially accelerate adjacent segment degeneration. Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) seeks to preserve native motion of the cervical spine, which can theoretically reduce the incidence of adjacent level degeneration. The literature regarding the relative efficacy of ACDF versus CDA remains inconsistent. In this study, the authors investigate the difference in outcomes between ACDF and CDA and identify factors contributing to the heterogeneity in the literature. METHODS The Ovid, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched from inception to September 5, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ACDF and CDA for degenerative disc disease. Studies were extracted by two authors and verified by a third. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was the difference in clinical outcomes between the two surgical groups. The secondary outcomes were the differences in radiological outcomes, surgical characteristics, complication rates, and hospital lengths of stay. The study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration no. CRD42023469204) and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS From 584 articles uploaded to the Covidence platform for screening, 35 studies derived from 25 RCTs were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 4530 patients were treated with ACDF (2081) and CDA (2449). Forty-six percent of the patients (2063) were male, and the mean age of the study cohort was 45 ± 3 years. In terms of the primary outcome, CDA showed higher rates of neurological and overall success. Regarding the secondary outcomes, CDA demonstrated a significantly lower rate of adjacent level disease, higher rate of heterotopic ossification, and greater range of motion at the operated level. Additionally, CDA had lower rates of reoperation but significantly longer operative times than ACDF. The inclusion of myelopathic patients and variations in follow-up between the surgical groups contributed to the observed effect heterogeneity among studies. CONCLUSIONS In this study, CDA showed comparable or potentially greater success in overall and neurological outcomes, along with a lower incidence of adjacent level degeneration and reoperation rates but longer operative times.

The integration of mobile health (mHealth) technologies is transforming neurosurgery. Despite its potential, many uses remain unrealized due to the unique challenges and complexity of developing mHealth technology. While neurosurgeons bring invaluable clinical expertise and an understanding of patient needs, the technical intricacies of application development often require collaboration with developers and computer scientists, a process that can feel unfamiliar and difficult to navigate. The aim of this article was to demystify mHealth development by providing a guide for neurosurgeons seeking to develop disease-specific mHealth applications. We outline this process using the development of SynapTrack, an mHealth tool designed to provide objective assessments of degenerative cervical myelopathy, a chronic condition caused by symptomatic compression of the cervical spinal cord. This article offers neurosurgeons concrete guidance on navigating key considerations such as design decisions, algorithm integration, database architecture, and data security. By grounding these insights with SynapTrack, this guide offers a transparent view into the development process and provides a practical framework that can be adapted to the development of other mHealth tools. The aim of this work was to foster interdisciplinary collaboration and enable neurosurgeons to develop mHealth applications tailored to the specific needs of their specialty.

Study Design: A national prospective cervical spine surgery registry was developed to archive radiographic studies, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and surgical implant data to assess long-term safety. Objective: To describe the design, development, funding, and implementation of a cervical spine data registry for 1000 patients with myelopathy and radiculopathy. Summary of Background Data: While surgery for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy is safe and effective, there is significant practice variation among spine surgeons. While randomized clinical trials (RCTs) can provide high-quality comparative effectiveness data, RCTs lack the ability to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of various surgical procedures and implants among heterogenous real-world patient populations. The CSRS Registry was designed to collect patient demographics, outcomes, radiographic imaging, surgical approach, and implant data for the purpose of conducting high-quality research. Methods: Patients with cervical myelopathy or radiculopathy were enrolled in the CSRS National Registry. De-identified patient data, validated PROMs, radiographic data, and implant data were collected from multiple clinical sites across the United States. Results: One thousand patients [mean age, 58 y; 456 (46%) women] were enrolled, with 31% follow-up at 1 year. Five hundred ninety-two patients were diagnosed with radiculopathy, 252 with myelopathy, and 156 with radiculopathy and myelopathy. Patients had significant improvements in their PROMs after surgery. At 1 year, the mean NDI score improved from 37.2 to 20.9 ( P <0.001). The mean self-reported P-mJOA score at baseline was 14.2 and improved to 15.2 by 1 year ( P <0.001). Baseline CSDI score was 23.6 and improved with a 1-year decrease to an average score of 13.6 ( P <0.001). There was significant improvement in PROMIS-10 Physical Health score from 41.0 to 45.9 (n=311; P <0.001) at 1-year follow-up. Conclusions: The CSRS Registry has successfully collected clinical outcomes data that is being leveraged for comparative effectiveness research and evaluations of the long-term safety and effectiveness of spinal implants.

OBJECTIVE Core outcome sets (COSs) are needed to promote data consistency across studies as well as data synthesis and comparability. The goal of the current study was to utilize a modified Delphi process to develop a COS–sciatic injury and neuropathy evaluation (COS-SINE). METHODS A five-stage approach was utilized to develop the COS-SINE: stage 1, consortium development; stage 2, literature review to identify potential outcome measures; stage 3, Delphi survey to develop consensus on outcomes for inclusion; stage 4, Delphi survey to develop definitions; and stage 5, consensus meeting to finalize the COS and definitions. The study followed the Core Outcome Set–STAndards for Development recommendations. RESULTS The Core Outcomes in Nerve Surgery (COINS) Consortium comprised 23 participants, all neurological surgeons, representing 13 countries. Three participants were excluded on the basis of agreed upon participation rules. The final COS-SINE consisted of 36 data points/outcomes covering the domains of demographics, diagnostics, patient-reported outcomes, motor and sensory outcomes, and complications. Appropriate instruments, methods of testing, and definitions were set. The consensus minimum duration of follow-up was 24 months, with consensus optimal time points for assessment identified as preoperatively and 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS The COINS Consortium developed a consensus COS and provided definitions, methods of implementation, and time points for assessment. The COS-SINE should serve as a minimum set of data that should be collected in all future neurosurgical studies on sciatic nerve injury and neuropathy. Incorporation of this COS should help improve consistency in reporting and data synthesis and comparability and should minimize outcome-reporting bias.

AbstractWithin the past decade, there have been multiple innovations in the field of nerve surgery. In this review, we highlight critical changes and innovations that have helped advance the field and present opportunities for further study. This includes the modification and clarification of the classification schema for nerve injuries which informs prognosis and treatment, and a refined understanding and application of electrodiagnostic studies to guide patient selection. We provide indications for operative intervention based on this nerve injury classification and propose strategies best contoured for varying injury presentations at differing time points. Lastly, we discuss new developments in surgical techniques and approaches based on these advancements.

OBJECTIVE Common peroneal (fibular) neuropathy is the most common mononeuropathy of the lower extremity. Despite this, there are surprisingly few studies on the topic, and a knowledge gap remains in the literature. As one attempts to address this knowledge gap, a core outcome set (COS) is needed to guide the planning phases of future studies to allow synthesis and comparability of these studies. The objective of this study was to develop the COS–common peroneal neuropathy (CoPe) using a modified Delphi approach. METHODS A 5-stage approach was used to develop the COS-CoPe: 1) stage 1, consortium development; 2) stage 2, a literature review to identify potential outcome measures; 3) stage 3, a Delphi survey to develop consensus on outcomes for inclusion; 4) stage 4, a Delphi survey to develop definitions; and 5) stage 5, a consensus meeting to finalize COS and definitions. The study followed the COS–STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) recommendations. RESULTS The Core Outcomes in Nerve Surgery (COINS) Consortium comprised 23 participants, all neurological surgeons, representing 13 countries. The final COS-CoPe consisted of 31 data points/outcomes covering domains of demographics, diagnostics, patient-reported outcomes, motor/sensory outcomes, and complications. Appropriate instruments, methods of testing, and definitions were set. The consensus minimum duration of follow-up was 12 months. The consensus optimal time points for assessment were preoperatively and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS The COINS Consortium developed a consensus COS and provided definitions, methods of implementation, and time points for assessment. The COS-CoPe should serve as a minimum set of data that should be collected in all future neurosurgical studies on common peroneal neuropathy. Incorporation of this COS should help improve consistency in reporting, data synthesis, and comparability, and should minimize outcome reporting bias.

OBJECTIVE When considering traumatic brachial plexus and upper extremity nerve injuries, iatrogenic nerve injuries, and nontraumatic nerve injuries, brachial plexus and upper extremity nerve injuries are commonly encountered in clinical practice. Despite this, data synthesis and comparison of available studies are difficult. This is at least in part due to the lack of standardization in reporting and a lack of a core outcome set (COS). Thus, there is a need for a COS for adult brachial plexus and upper extremity nerve injuries (COS-BPUE). The objective of this study was to develop a COS-BPUE using a modified Delphi approach. METHODS A 5-stage approach was used to develop the COS-BPUE: 1) consortium development, 2) literature review to identify potential outcome measures, 3) Delphi survey to develop consensus on outcomes for inclusion, 4) Delphi survey to develop definitions, and 5) consensus meeting to finalize the COS and definitions. The study followed the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) recommendations. RESULTS The Core Outcomes in Nerve Surgery (COINS) Consortium comprised 23 participants, all neurological surgeons, representing 13 countries. The final COS-BPUE consisted of 36 data points/outcomes covering demographic, diagnostic, patient-reported outcome, motor/sensory outcome, and complication domains. Appropriate instruments, methods of testing, and definitions were set. The consensus minimum duration of follow-up was 24 months, with the consensus optimal time points for assessment being preoperatively and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS The COINS Consortium developed a consensus COS and provided definitions, methods of implementation, and time points for assessment. The COS-BPUE should serve as a minimum set of data that should be collected in all future neurosurgical studies on adult brachial plexus and upper extremity nerve injuries. Incorporation of this COS should help improve consistency in reporting, data synthesis, and comparability, and should minimize outcome reporting bias.

OBJECTIVE The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS)/Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) Joint Spine Section awards highlight outstanding abstracts submitted to the AANS/CNS Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves by trainees interested in spine surgery, although the academic trajectory of awardees has not been studied. The aim of this study was to assess the academic career progression of prior recipients of the Journalistic and Academic Neurosurgical Excellence (JANE), Mayfield, and Kuntz research awards. METHODS Prior JANE, Mayfield, and Kuntz award recipients were identified using awardee records accrued between 1984 and February 2022. Awardee sex, country of residence, specialty, subspecialty focus, and current academic appointment status (if applicable) were searched online. Awardee h-indices and number of peer-reviewed publications were assessed via Google Scholar profiles (or Scopus if unavailable) and PubMed, respectively. Receipt of federal research funding as principal investigator (PI) was determined using the websites of the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs. The abstract-to-publication rate was assessed. RESULTS A total of 7 JANE awards, 57 Mayfield awards, and 149 Kuntz awards were identified. Of the JANE awardees, all recipients were male. Of the 4 unique JANE awardees who completed training, 2 (50.0%) held academic appointments at the time of the study. All of the JANE abstracts were published in peer-reviewed journals. The mean h-index of all JANE awardees was 28 and the mean number of publications was 126. None of the awardees have received federal research funding. Of the Mayfield awards, 98.2% were awarded to males. Of the 43 unique Mayfield awardees who completed training, 20 (46.5%) held faculty appointments at academic medical centers. All of the Mayfield abstracts since 2011 were published in peer-reviewed journals. The mean h-index of all Mayfield awardees was 26 and the mean number of publications was 82. Five Mayfield awardees received National Institutes of Health funding as PI, and 7 awardees received Department of Defense funding as PI. Of the Kuntz awards, 95.3% were awarded to males. Most awards were given to current residents and fellows (46.3%). Of the 55 unique Kuntz awardees who completed training, 31 (56.4%) held faculty appointments at academic medical centers. The abstract-to-publication rate of the total Kuntz abstracts was 70.5%. The mean h-index of all Kuntz awardees was 15 and the mean number of publications was 58. Five Kuntz awardees (3.4%) received federal research funding as PI. CONCLUSIONS Many recipients of the JANE, Mayfield, and Kuntz Joint Spine Section awards have successfully translated award abstracts into peer-reviewed publications. Furthermore, approximately one-third of the awardees are active in academic neurosurgery, with some having secured federal research funding.

OBJECTIVE Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE) is common, affecting 1%–6% of the population. Despite this, there remains a lack of consensus regarding optimal treatment. This is primarily due to the difficulty one encounters when trying to assess the literature. Outcomes are inconsistently reported, which makes comparing studies or developing meta-analyses difficult or even impossible. Thus, there is a need for a core outcome set (COS) for UNE (COS-UNE) to help address this problem. The objective of this study was to utilize a modified Delphi method to develop COS-UNE. METHODS A 5-stage approach was utilized to develop COS-UNE: stage 1, consortium development; 2, literature review to identify potential outcome measures; 3, Delphi survey to develop consensus on outcomes for inclusion; 4, Delphi survey to develop definitions; and 5, consensus meeting to finalize the COS and definitions. The study followed the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) recommendations. RESULTS The Core Outcomes in Nerve Surgery (COINS) Consortium comprised 21 participants, all neurological surgeons representing 11 countries. The final COS-UNE consisted of 22 data points/outcomes covering the domains of demographic characteristics, diagnostics, patient-reported outcomes, motor/sensory outcomes, and complications. Appropriate instruments, methods of testing, and definitions were set. The consensus minimum duration of follow-up was 6 months, with the consensus optimal timepoints for assessment identified as preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS The authors identified consensus data points/outcomes and also provided definitions and specific scales to be utilized to help ensure that clinicians are consistent in their reporting across studies on UNE. This COS should serve as a minimum set of data to be collected in all future neurosurgical studies on UNE. The authors hope that clinicians evaluating ulnar neuropathy will incorporate this COS into routine practice and that future studies will consider this COS in the design phase.