Search

Introduction  The motivation to improve accuracy and reduce complication rates in spinal surgery has driven great advancements in robotic surgical systems, with the primary difference between the newer generation and older generation models being the presence of an optical camera and multijointed arm. This study compares accuracy and complication rates of pedicle screw placement in older versus newer generation robotic systems reported in the literature. Methods  We performed a systemic review and meta-analysis describing outcomes of pedicle screw placement with robotic spine surgery. We assessed the robustness of these findings by quantifying levels of cross-study heterogeneity and publication bias. Finally, we performed meta-regression to test for associations between pedicle screw accuracy and older versus newer generation robotic spine system usage. Results  Average pedicle screw placement accuracy rates for old and new generation robotic platforms were 97 and 99%, respectively. Use of new generation robots was significantly associated with improved pedicle screw placement accuracy ( p  = 0.03). Conclusion  Accuracy of pedicle screw placement was high across all generations of robotic surgical systems. However, newer generation robots were shown to be significantly associated with accurate pedicle screw placement, showing the benefits of upgrading robotic systems with a real-time optical camera and multijointed arm.

At the time of writing of this article, there have been over 110 million cases and 2.4 million deaths worldwide since the start of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, postponing millions of non-urgent surgeries. Existing literature explores the complexities of rationing medical care. However, implications of non-urgent surgery postponement during the COVID-19 pandemic have not yet been analyzed within the context of the four pillars of medical ethics. The objective of this review is to discuss the ethics of elective surgery cancellation during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and autonomy. This review hypothesizes that a more equitable decision-making algorithm can be formulated by analyzing the ethical dilemmas of elective surgical care during the pandemic through the lens of these four pillars. This paper's analysis shows that non-urgent surgeries treat conditions that can become urgent if left untreated. Postponement of these surgeries can cause cumulative harm downstream. An improved algorithm can address these issues of beneficence by weighing local pandemic stressors within predictive algorithms to appropriately increase surgeries. Additionally, the potential harms of performing non-urgent surgeries extend beyond the patient. Non-maleficence is maintained through using enhanced screening protocols and modifying surgical techniques to reduce risks to patients and clinicians. This model proposes a system to transfer patients from areas of high to low burden, addressing the challenge of justice by considering facility burden rather than value judgments concerning the nature of a particular surgery, such as cosmetic surgeries. Autonomy can be respected by giving patients the option to cancel or postpone non-urgent surgeries. However, in the context of limited resources in a global pandemic, autonomy is not absolute. Non-urgent surgeries can ethically be postponed in opposition to the patient's preference. The proposed algorithm attempts to uphold the four principles of medical ethics in rationing non-urgent surgical care by building upon existing decision models, using additional measures of resource burden and surgical safety to increase health care access and decrease long-term harm as much as possible. The next global health crisis will undoubtedly present its own unique challenges. This model may serve as a comprehensive starting point in determining future guidelines for non-urgent surgical care.

Objective To investigate the estimated hearing preservation rates in patients with sporadic VS (vestibular schwannomas) after RS (retrosigmoid) surgery through a meta-analysis based on the published hearing outcomes within the current literature.Data Sources Both the PubMed and Cochrane databases were used to identify retrospective and prospective studies which involved hearing outcomes of VS patients who underwent the RS approach. The final search was performed on November 11, 2017. The first and third authors independently reviewed the aggregated articles, and final decisions of study inclusion were dependent on consensus.Study Selection Of 313 articles, 16 studies (5.1%) met eligibility criteria. Together, these 16 studies comprised a total of 1,249 patients with serviceable preoperative hearing in the affected ear, from whom postoperative hearing preservation could be evaluated.Data Extraction Both preoperative and postoperative hearing grades were extracted to determine the hearing preservation rate presented in the group of patients in each article. Additionally, demographics regarding gender, age, mean tumor size, and mean FU (follow-up) time pertaining to the patients in each article were extracted as well.Data Synthesis Study heterogeneity was quantified through computation of t2,Q, and I2 statistics. A Wald-type Q statistic was used to assess statistical significance of study heterogeneity. Assessment of study bias was performed using standard funnel plot analysis and an Egger’s test for funnel plot asymmetry. Significant cross-study heterogeneity was found, with rates of hearing preservation ranging from 12-79% across studies. Aggregate hearing preservation was 23% under a fixed effects model and 37% allowing for random study effects. Clear systematic bias was also apparent, with disproportionate numbers of (mostly smaller) studies reporting hearing preservation rates markedly higher than the aggregate estimates (P< 0.0001). As expected, rates of hearing preservation were also strongly dependent on preoperative tumor size, with rates of 59%, 37%, and 11% observed for intracanalicular, small, and large (>20 mm) tumors, respectively.Conclusions Hearing preservation rates are likely dependent on multiple factors and tumor size has a strong effect. It is critical to discuss the patient’s expectations for hearing preservation when deciding on treatment plans for VS.

Background:Worldwide, approximately 2% of new cancers are of the brain. Five-year survival rates among brain cancer patients have been reported as a little over a third. Differences in clinical outcomes between brain tumor patients of different races remain poorly understood. Methods:A retrospective chart review was performed on brain tumor resection patients≥18 years old. Demographics, treatment variables, and survival outcomes were collected. Primary outcomes were length of stay, recurrence rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results:A total of 452 patients were included in analysis. Females and males had nearly a 1:1 ratio (n=242 and n=220, respectively). Mean age was 54.8 years (SD: 14.5 range: 18-90). Females composed 69% (n=48) of Asian patients; males constituted 31% (n=22). Mean age of the Asian patients was 55.9 years (SD: 14.6 range: 26-89). Asian-only cohort tumor pathologies included glioblastoma (GBM) (n=14), high-grade glioma (n=7), low-grade glioma (n=4), meningioma (n=38), and metastases (n=7). Of the 185 meningioma patients, non-Asian patients comprised 79% of the group (n=146). Of the 65 GBM patients in total, non-Asian patients made up 89% of the GBM cohort (n=58). There were no statistically significant differences between these groups of both cohorts in recurrence (p=0.1580 and p=0.6294, respectively), PFS (p=0.9662 and p=0.4048, respectively), or OS (p=0.3711 and p=0.8183, respectively). Conclusion:Studies evaluating the survival between patients of different racial backgrounds against several tumor varieties are rare. Patients of certain racial backgrounds may need additional consideration when being attended to despite the same mutational composition as their counterparts. Repeated studies using national databases may yield more conclusive results.