This site usescookies, tags, and tracking settings to store information that help give you the very best browsing experience. Dismiss this warning

Filter

Refine by Publication

Refine by Date
—

Refine by Access

By Author

  • Print
  • Save

Search Results

You are looking at1-6of6items for

  • Author or Editor: Sally El Sammakx
  • Refine by Access: allx
Clear All Modify Search
Free access

Rescue therapy with novel waveform spinal cord stimulation for patients with failed back surgery syndrome refractory to conventional stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sally El Sammak, William Mualem, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Joshua M. Romero, Christopher T. Ha, Christine L. Hunt, and Mohamad Bydon

OBJECTIVE

Conventional spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) have demonstrated efficacy in individuals with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). However, a subgroup of patients may become refractory to the effects of conventional waveforms over time. The objective of this study was to systematically review and evaluate the current literature on the use of novel waveform spinal cord stimulation for the management of FBSS refractory to conventional SCSs.

开云体育世界杯赔率

一个全面的电子搜索的文学e published in electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The outcomes of interest were reduction in back pain and/or leg pain after conversion from conventional to novel SCSs. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria.

RESULTS

总共6研究137例的边后卫were identified. Studies were published between 2013 and 2021. The mean ± SD age of the pooled patient sample was 55 ± 10.5 years. All patients who underwent treatment with conventional SCSs were identified. Two studies evaluated the efficacy of high-density spinal cord stimulation, 3 studies evaluated burst spinal cord stimulation, and 1 study assessed multimodal waveforms. The mean difference in back pain scores after conversion from a standard SCS to a novel waveform SCS was 2.55 (95% CI 1.59–4.08), demonstrating a significant reduction in back pain after conversion to novel stimulation. The authors also performed a subgroup analysis to compare burst stimulation to tonic waveforms. In this analysis, the authors found no significant difference in the average reductions in back pain between the 2 groups (p = 0.534).The authors found an I2statistic equivalent to 98.47% in the meta-regression model used to assess the effect of follow-up duration on study outcome; this value implied that the variability in the data can be attributed to the remaining between-study heterogeneity. The overall certainty was moderate, with a high risk of bias across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Rescue therapy with novel waveform spinal cord stimulation is a potential option for pain reduction in patients who become refractory to conventional SCSs. Conversion to novel waveform SCSs may potentially mitigate expenses and complications.

InJournal of Neurosurgery: Spine Volume 37: Issue 5 (Nov 2022)

Restricted access

Comparison of surgical interventions for the treatment of early-onset scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gloria Kim, Sally El Sammak, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, William Mualem, Zachariah W. Pinter, Brett A. Freedman, and Mohamad Bydon

OBJECTIVE

Several growth-preserving surgical techniques are employed in the management of early-onset scoliosis (EOS). The authors’ objective was to compare the use of traditional growing rods (TGRs), magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGRs), Shilla growth guidance techniques, and vertically expanding prosthetic titanium ribs (VEPTRs) for the management of EOS.

开云体育世界杯赔率

A systematic review of electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE and Cochrane, was performed. Outcomes of interest included correction of Cobb angle, T1–S1 distance, and complication rate, including alignment, hardware failure and infection, and planned and unplanned reoperation rates. The percent changes and 95% CIs were pooled across studies using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

共有67项研究,制作h included 2021 patients. Of these, 1169 (57.8%) patients underwent operations with TGR, 178 (8.8%) Shilla growth guidance system, 448 (22.2%) MCGR, and 226 (11.1%) VEPTR system. The mean ± SD age of the cohort was 6.9 ± 1.2 years. The authors found that the Shilla technique provided the most significant improvement in coronal Cobb angle immediately after surgery (mean [95% CI] 64.3% [61.4%–67.2%]), whereas VEPTR (27.6% [22.7%–33.6%]) performed significantly worse. VEPTR also performed significantly worse than the other techniques at final follow-up. The techniques also provided comparable gains in T1–S1 height immediately postoperatively (mean [95% CI] 10.7% [8.4%–13.0%]); however, TGR performed better at final follow-up (21.4% [18.7%–24.1%]). Complications were not significantly different among the patients who underwent the Shilla, TGR, MCGR, and VEPTR techniques, except for the rate of infections. The TGR technique had the lowest rate of unplanned reoperations (mean [95% CI] 15% [10%–23%] vs 24% [19%–29%]) but the highest number of planned reoperations per patient (5.31 [4.83–5.82]). The overall certainty was also low, with a high risk of bias across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis suggested that the Shilla technique was associated with a greater early coronal Cobb angle correction, whereas use of VEPTR was associated with a lower correction rate at any time point. TGR offered the most significant height gain at final follow-up. The complication rates were comparable across all surgical techniques. The optimal surgical approach should be tailored to individual patients, taking into consideration the strengths and limitations of each option.

InJournal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics Volume 31: Issue 4 (Apr 2023)

Restricted access

Assessing the differences in operative and patient-reported outcomes between lateral approaches for lumbar fusion: a systematic review and indirect meta-analysis

Atiq ur Rehman Bhatti, Joseph Cesare, Waseem Wahood, Mohammed Ali Alvi, Chiduziem E. Onyedimma, Abdul Karim Ghaith, Oluwatoyin Akinnusotu, Sally El Sammak, Brett A. Freedman, Arjun S. Sebastian, and Mohamad Bydon

OBJECTIVE

Anterior-to-psoas lumbar interbody fusion (ATP-LIF), more commonly referred to as oblique lateral interbody fusion, and lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LTP-LIF), also known as extreme lateral interbody fusion, are the two commonly used lateral approaches for performing a lumbar fusion procedure. These approaches help overcome some of the technical challenges associated with traditional approaches for lumbar fusion. In this systematic review and indirect meta-analysis, the authors compared operative and patient-reported outcomes between these two select approaches using available studies.

开云体育世界杯赔率

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, the authors conducted an electronic search using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for studies published before May 1, 2019. Indirect meta-analysis was conducted on fusion rate, cage movement (subsidence plus migration), permanent deficits, and transient deficits; results were depicted as forest plots of proportions (effect size [ES]).

RESULTS

A total of 63 studies were included in this review after applying the exclusion criteria, of which 26 studies investigated the outcomes of ATP-LIF, while 37 studied the outcomes of LTP-LIF. The average fusion rate was found to be similar between the two groups (ES 0.97, 95% CI 0.84–1.00 vs ES 0.94, 95% CI 0.91–0.97; p = 0.561). The mean incidence of cage movement was significantly higher in the ATP-LIF group compared with the LTP-LIF group (stand-alone: ES 0.15, 95% CI 0.06–0.27 vs ES 0.09, 95% CI 0.04–0.16 [p = 0.317]; combined: ES 0.18, 95% CI 0.07–0.32 vs ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.00–0.05 [p = 0.002]). The mean incidence of reoperations was significantly higher in patients undergoing ATP-LIF than in those undergoing LTP-LIF (ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.01–0.03 vs ES 0.04, 95% CI 0.02–0.07; p = 0.012). The mean incidence of permanent deficits was similar between the two groups (stand-alone: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.06 vs ES 0.05, 95% CI 0.01–0.12 [p = 0.204]; combined: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.06 vs ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.00–0.08 [p = 0.595]). The postoperative changes in visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were both found to be higher for ATP-LIF relative to LTP-LIF (VAS: weighted average 4.11 [SD 2.03] vs weighted average 3.75 [SD 1.94] [p = 0.004]; ODI: weighted average 28.3 [SD 5.33] vs weighted average 24.3 [SD 4.94] [p < 0.001]).

CONCLUSIONS

These analyses indicate that while both approaches are associated with similar fusion rates, ATP-LIF may be related to higher odds of cage movement and reoperations as compared with LTP-LIF. Furthermore, there is no difference in rates of permanent deficits between the two procedures.

InJournal of Neurosurgery: Spine Volume 37: Issue 4 (Oct 2022)

Free access

Outpatient versus inpatient lumbar decompression surgery: a matched noninferiority study investigating clinical and patient-reported outcomes

James Mooney, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Daniel Zeitouni, Sally El Sammak, Mohammed Ali Alvi, Michael Y. Wang, Domagoj Coric, Andrew K. Chan, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Erica F. Bisson, Brandon Sherrod, Regis W. Haid Jr., John J. Knightly, Clinton J. Devin, Brenton H. Pennicooke, Anthony L. Asher, and Mohamad Bydon

OBJECTIVE

Spine surgery represents an ideal target for healthcare cost reduction efforts, with outpatient surgery resulting in significant cost savings. With an increased focus on value-based healthcare delivery, lumbar decompression surgery has been increasingly performed in the outpatient setting when appropriate. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes following outpatient and inpatient lumbar decompression surgery.

开云体育世界杯赔率

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing elective one- or two-level lumbar decompression (laminectomy or laminotomy with or without discectomy) for degenerative spine disease. Patients were grouped as outpatient if they had a length of stay (LOS) < 24 hours and as inpatient if they stayed in the hospital ≥ 24 hours. Patients with ≥ 72-hour stay were excluded from the comparative analysis to increase baseline comparability between the two groups. To create two highly homogeneous groups, optimal matching was performed at a 1:1 ratio between the two groups on 38 baseline variables, including demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, indications, and operative details. Outcomes of interest were readmissions and reoperations at 30 days and 3 months after surgery, overall satisfaction, and decrease in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back pain, and leg pain at 3 months after surgery. Satisfaction was defined as a score of 1 or 2 in the North American Spine Society patient satisfaction index. Noninferiority of outpatient compared with inpatient surgery was defined as risk difference of < 1.5% at a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval.

RESULTS

A total of 18,689 eligible one- and two-level decompression surgeries were identified. The matched study cohorts consisted of 5016 patients in each group. Nonroutine discharge was slightly less common in the outpatient group (0.6% vs 0.3%, p = 0.01). The 30-day readmission rates were 4.4% and 4.3% for the outpatient and inpatient groups, respectively, while the 30-day reoperation rates were 1.4% and 1.5%. The 3-month readmission rates were 6.3% for both groups, and the 3-month reoperation rates were 3.1% for the outpatient cases and 2.9% for the inpatient cases. Overall satisfaction at 3 months was 88.8% for the outpatient group and 88.4% for the inpatient group. Noninferiority of outpatient surgery was documented for readmissions, reoperations, and patient-reported satisfaction from surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

朱元璋门诊腰椎减压手术ed slightly lower nonroutine discharge rates in comparison with inpatient surgery. Noninferiority in clinical outcomes at 30 days and 3 months after surgery was documented for outpatient compared with inpatient decompression surgery. Additionally, outpatient decompression surgery performed noninferiorly to inpatient surgery in achieving patient satisfaction from surgery.

InJournal of Neurosurgery: Spine Volume 37: Issue 4 (Oct 2022)

Free access

Time trend analysis of database and registry use in the neurosurgical literature: evidence for the advance of registry science

Anthony L. Asher, Sally El Sammak, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Yagiz U. Yolcu, A. Yohan Alexander, John J. Knightly, Kevin T. Foley, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Robert E. Harbaugh, Geoffrey A. Rose, Domagoj Coric, Erica F. Bisson, Steven D. Glassman, Praveen V. Mummaneni, and Mohamad Bydon

InJournal of Neurosurgery Volume 136: Issue 6 (Jun 2022)

Restricted access

Representativeness of the American Spine Registry: a comparison of patient characteristics with the National Inpatient Sample

Mohamad Bydon, Zeeshan M. Sardar, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Sally El Sammak, Andrew K. Chan, Leah Y. Carreon, Elizabeth Norheim, Paul Park, John K. Ratliff, Luis Tumialán, Andrew J. Pugely, Michael P. Steinmetz, Wellington Hsu, John J. Knightly, Diane M. Ziegenhorn, Patrick C. Donnelly, Kyle J. Mullen, Stefan Rykowsky, Ayushmita De, Eric A. Potts, Domagoj Coric, Michael Y. Wang, Sheeraz Qureshi, Rajiv K. Sethi, Kai-Ming Fu, Alpesh A. Patel, S. Tim Yoon, Darrel Brodke, Ann R. Stroink, Erica F. Bisson, Regis W. Haid, Anthony L. Asher, Doug Burton, Praveen V. Mummaneni, and Steven D. Glassman

OBJECTIVE

The American Spine Registry (ASR) is a collaborative effort between the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. The goal of this study was to evaluate how representative the ASR is of the national practice with spinal procedures, as recorded in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS).

开云体育世界杯赔率

The authors queried the NIS and the ASR for cervical and lumbar arthrodesis cases performed during 2017–2019.International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revisionand Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients undergoing cervical and lumbar procedures. The two groups were compared for the overall proportion of cervical and lumbar procedures, age distribution, sex, surgical approach features, race, and hospital volume. Outcomes available in the ASR, such as patient-reported outcomes and reoperations, were not analyzed due to nonavailability in the NIS. The representativeness of the ASR compared to the NIS was assessed via Cohen’s d effect sizes, and absolute standardized mean differences (SMDs) of < 0.2 were considered trivial, whereas > 0.5 were considered moderately large.

RESULTS

A total of 24,800 arthrodesis procedures were identified in the ASR for the period between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. During the same time period, 1,305,360 cases were recorded in the NIS. Cervical fusions comprised 35.9% of the ASR cohort (8911 cases) and 36.0% of the NIS cohort (469,287 cases). The two databases presented trivial differences in terms of patient age and sex for all years of interest across both cervical and lumbar arthrodeses (SMD < 0.2). Trivial differences were also noted in the distribution of open versus percutaneous procedures of the cervical and lumbar spine (SMD < 0.2). Among lumbar cases, anterior approaches were more common in the ASR than in the NIS (32.1% vs 22.3%, SMD = 0.22), but the discrepancy among cervical cases in the two databases was trivial (SMD = 0.03). Small differences were illustrated in terms of race, with SMDs < 0.5, and a more significant discrepancy was identified in the geographic distribution of participating sites (SMDs of 0.7 and 0.74 for cervical and lumbar cases, respectively). For both of these measures, SMDs in 2019 were smaller than those in 2018 and 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

The ASR and NIS databases presented a very high similarity in proportions of cervical and lumbar spine surgeries, as well as similar distributions of age and sex, and distribution of open versus endoscopic approach. Slight discrepancies in anterior versus posterior approach among lumbar cases and patient race, and more significant discrepancies in geographic representation were also identified, yet decreasing trends in differences suggested the improving representativeness of the ASR over the course of time and its progressive growth. These conclusions are important to underline the external validity of quality investigations and research conclusions to be drawn from analyses in which the ASR is used.

In开云手机版app下载安装最新版脊柱神经外科杂志:发布开云体育app官方网站下载入口更加积极re Print

Baidu
map