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 at1-3of3items for

  • Author or Editor: Stavros Matsoukasx
  • Refine by Access: allx
Clear All Modify Search
Open access

Intraoperative use of heads-up display in skull base surgery

Laura Salgado-Lopez, Holly Oemke, Rui Feng, Stavros Matsoukas, J Mocco, Raj Shrivastava, and Joshua Bederson

In this video, the authors highlight the applications of virtual reality and heads-up display in skull base surgery by presenting the case of a 45-year-old woman with an incidental large clinoid meningioma extending into the posterior fossa. The patient underwent preoperative endovascular tumor embolization to facilitate tumor resection and reduce blood loss, followed by a right pterional craniotomy. The use of intraoperative Doppler, intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring, and endoscope-assisted microsurgery is also featured. A subtotal resection was planned given tumor encasement of the posterior communicating and anterior choroidal arteries. No new neurological deficits were noted after the surgical procedure.

The video can be found here:https://stream.cadmore.media/r10.3171/2021.10.FOCVID21177

InNeurosurgical Focus: Video Volume 6: Issue 1 (Jan 2022): Intraoperative Visualization

Restricted access

Outcomes following anterior odontoid screw versus posterior arthrodesis for odontoid fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Pavlos Texakalidis, Stavros Matsoukas, Constantine L. Karras, Hyman G. Frankel, Kevin Swong, Geoffrey P. Stricsek, and Nader S. Dahdaleh

OBJECTIVE

Odontoid fractures can be managed surgically when indicated. The most common approaches are anterior dens screw (ADS) fixation and posterior C1–C2 arthrodesis (PA). Each approach has theoretical advantages, but the optimal surgical approach remains controversial. The goal in this study was to systematically review the literature and synthesize outcomes including fusion rates, technical failures, reoperation, and 30-day mortality associated with ADS versus PA for odontoid fractures.

开云体育世界杯赔率

A systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed and the I2statistic was used to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In total, 22 studies comprising 963 patients (ADS 527, PA 436) were included. The average age of the patients ranged from 28 to 81.2 years across the included studies. The majority of the odontoid fractures were type II based on the Anderson-D’Alonzo classification. The ADS group was associated with statistically significantly lower odds to achieve bony fusion at last follow-up compared to the PA group (ADS 84.1%; PA 92.3%; OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.23–0.91; I242.6%)。广告group was associated with statistically significantly higher odds of reoperation compared to the PA group (ADS 12.4%; PA 5.2%; OR 2.56; 95% CI 1.50–4.35; I20%). The rates of technical failure (ADS 2.3%; PA 1.1%; OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.52–2.37; I20%) and all-cause mortality (ADS 6%; PA 4.8%; OR 1.35; 95% CI 0.67–2.74; I20%) were similar between the two groups. In the subgroup analysis of patients > 60 years old, the ADS was associated with statistically significantly lower odds of fusion compared to the PA group (ADS 72.4%; PA 89.9%; OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.06–0.91; I258.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

ADS fixation is associated with statistically significantly lower odds of fusion at last follow-up and higher odds of reoperation compared to PA. No differences were identified in the rates of technical failure and all-cause mortality. Patients receiving ADS fixation at > 60 years old had significantly higher and lower odds of reoperation and fusion, respectively, compared to the PA group. PA is preferred to ADS fixation for odontoid fractures, with a stronger effect size for patients > 60 years old.

InJournal of Neurosurgery: Spine Publish Before Print

Free access

Three-dimensional assessment of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement accuracy and instrumentation reliability based on a preplanned trajectory

Bowen Jiang, Zach Pennington, Alex Zhu, Stavros Matsoukas, A. Karim Ahmed, Jeff Ehresman, Smruti Mahapatra, Ethan Cottrill, Hailey Sheppell, Amir Manbachi, Neil Crawford, and Nicholas Theodore

OBJECTIVE

Robotic spine surgery systems are increasingly used in the US market. As this technology gains traction, however, it is necessary to identify mechanisms that assess its effectiveness and allow for its continued improvement. One such mechanism is the development of a new 3D grading system that can serve as the foundation for error-based learning in robot systems. Herein the authors attempted 1) to define a system of providing accuracy data along all three pedicle screw placement axes, that is, cephalocaudal, mediolateral, and screw long axes; and 2) to use the grading system to evaluate the mean accuracy of thoracolumbar pedicle screws placed using a single commercially available robotic system.

开云体育世界杯赔率

The authors retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained, IRB-approved database of patients at a single tertiary care center who had undergone instrumented fusion of the thoracic or lumbosacral spine using robotic assistance. Patients with preoperatively planned screw trajectories and postoperative CT studies were included in the final analysis. Screw accuracy was measured as the net deviation of the planned trajectory from the actual screw trajectory in the mediolateral, cephalocaudal, and screw long axes.

RESULTS

The authors identified 47 patients, 51% male, whose pedicles had been instrumented with a total of 254 screws (63 thoracic, 191 lumbosacral). The patients had a mean age of 61.1 years and a mean BMI of 30.0 kg/m2．的意思是螺旋提示精度1.3±1.3 mm, 1.2 ± 1.1 mm, and 2.6 ± 2.2 mm in the mediolateral, cephalocaudal, and screw long axes, respectively, for a net linear deviation of 3.6 ± 2.3 mm and net angular deviation of 3.6° ± 2.8°. According to the Gertzbein-Robbins grading system, 184 screws (72%) were classified as grade A and 70 screws (28%) as grade B. Placement of 100% of the screws was clinically acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of the discussed robotic spine system is similar to that described for other surgical systems. Additionally, the authors outline a new method of grading screw placement accuracy that measures deviation in all three relevant axes. This grading system could provide the error signal necessary for unsupervised machine learning by robotic systems, which would in turn support continued improvement in instrumentation placement accuracy.

InJournal of Neurosurgery: Spine Volume 33: Issue 4 (Oct 2020)

Baidu
map