OBJECTIVE: We compared the effect of decompressive craniectomy between patients < 65 and ≥ 65 years age and investigated prognostics factors that may help predict favorable outcome in acute stroke patients undergoing decompressive surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 52 patients diagnosed with acute middle cerebral artery (MCA) territory infarction that underwent decompressive craniectomy were retrospectively reviewed. The outcome of all patients were evaluated by assessing the Glasgow coma scale, Glasgow outcome scale (GOS), and Modified Rankin scale (mRS) six months after the onset of the disease. 21 patients were preoperatively evaluated with a computed tomography angiography (CTA). Leptomeningeal collateral (LMC) circulation was graded using CTA by experienced neurosurgeons to assess its prognostic value. RESULTS: The thirty day mortality for patients ≥ 65 was 35.0% compared to 37.5% in patients < 65. There was no significant difference in the clinical and function outcome between the two groups (4.8 ± 1.2 vs. 4.5 ± 1.5, p = 0.474). Mortality was lower with early surgery (within 24 hours) group for both age groups (25% vs. 37.5% in ≥ 65, 20% vs. 40.7% in < 65). Longer intensive care units stay time and good collateral supply score were correlated with favorable outcome (p = 0.028, p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Decompressive craniectomy within 24 hours of stroke symptom onset improved survival in both the < 65 and ≥ 65 age groups. There was no significant difference in the functional outcome of both age groups. Unlike previous reports, old age, delayed operation, and multiple of infarct territories were not predictive of poor functional outcome. The presence of good collateral circulation may be a predictor of positive clinical outcome in acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing decompressive craniectomy.
Aged* ; Angiography ; Brain Edema ; Cerebral Infarction ; Collateral Circulation ; Decompressive Craniectomy* ; Glasgow Coma Scale ; Glasgow Outcome Scale ; Humans ; Infarction ; Infarction, Middle Cerebral Artery* ; Intensive Care Units ; Middle Cerebral Artery* ; Mortality ; Neurosurgeons ; Retrospective Studies ; Stroke

OBJECTIVE: In June 28, 2012, a 'Hospitalization guideline for car accident patients' was announced to mediate the clash of opinions about the hospitalization of minor head trauma patients among doctors, patients and insurance companies. The guideline was issued to describe the patients' symptoms and emotions in detail after the injury. In this paper, evaluation for the guideline and suggestions for modifications was done. METHODS: Thirty-two doctors, 96 patients and 60 employees were each given surveys about the hospitalization guidelines, related personnels' attitude and evaluation of patients' emotional problems. The frequency, ratio and chi-square test were performed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight point eight percent of doctors, 79.8% patients and 91.6% insurance company employees agreed to the need for a guideline. Among the 68.8% doctors that supported the need for a guideline, 18.8% knew that the guideline actually existed. Sixty-nine point two percent of doctors said that they would apply the guideline once they were introduced to it. Among the announced guideline provisions, 'Glasgow coma score less than 15' and 'socially not suitable for discharge' required reevaluation since 40.6% all surveyors consented that these two criteria were not suitable. The consensus supporting the need for emotional evaluation came out to be 78.1%, 58.5%, 50.9% in doctors, patients and insurance employees respectively. CONCLUSION: Although a guideline for hospitalization of minor head injury patients is necessary, some part of it seems to be reevaluated and improved, especially for clauses related to the patient's emotional problems. These changes and revisions to the guideline require further speculation and research.
Coma ; Consensus ; Craniocerebral Trauma* ; Hospitalization* ; Humans ; Insurance ; Patient Admission

Objective: : Although several commercialized bone cements are used during percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) for patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF), there are no reports using domestic products from South Korea. In this study, we investigated the safety and efficacy of Spinofill® (Injecta Inc., Gunpo, Korea), a new polymethyl methacrylate product. Methods: : A prospective, single-center, and single-arm clinical trial of 30 participants who underwent PVP using Spinofill® for painful thoracolumbar OVCF was performed with 6-months follow-up. Clinical and surgical outcomes included the Visual analog scale (VAS), Korean-Oswestry disability index (K-ODI), and Odom’s criteria, complication rate, and recurrence rate. Radiological outcomes were evaluated by measuring the findings of postoperative computed tomography and simple radiograph. Results: : The pain of VAS (from 8.95±1.05 to 4.65±2.06, p<0.001) and the life quality based on K-ODI (from 33.95±5.84 to 25.65±4.79, p<0.001) improved significantly, and successful patient satisfaction were achieved in 20 patients (66.7%) 1 day after surgery. These immediate improvements were maintained or more improved during the follow-up. There was no surgery- or product-related complications, but OVCF recurred in two patients (6.7%). Favorable cement interdigitation was reported in 24 patients (80.0%), and extra-vertebral cement leakage was reported in 13 patients (43.0%). The mean vertebral height ratio (from 60.49%±21.97% to 80.07%±13.16%, p<0.001) and segmental kyphotic angle (from 11.46°±8.50° to 7.79°±6.08°, p=0.002) improved one day after surgery. However, these short-term radiological findings somewhat regressed at the end. Conclusion : The overall outcomes of PVP using Spinofill® were as favorable as those of other conventionally used products.

Objective: : Although full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) has been tried as the latest alternative technique to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interobody fusion (MIS-TLIF) since mid-2010, the evidence is still lacking. We compared the clinical outcome and safety of Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative disease. Methods: : We systematically searched electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to find literature comparing Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF. The results retrieved were last updated on December 11, 2020. The perioperative outcome included the operation time, blood loss, complication, and hospital stay. The clinical outcomes included Visual analog scale (VAS) of low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the radiological outcome included pseudoarthosis rate with 12-month minimum follow-up. Results: : Four retrospective observational studies and one prospective observational study comprising 423 patients (183 Endo-LIF and 241 MIS-TLIF) were included, and the pooled data analysis revealed low heterogeneity between studies in our review. Baseline characteristics including age and sex were not different between the two groups. Operation time was significantly longer in Endo- LIF (mean difference [MD], 23.220 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.669–35.771; p=0.001). However, Endo-LIF resulted in less perioperative blood loss (MD, -144.710 mL; 95% CI, 247.941–41.478; p=0.023). Although VAS back pain at final (MD, -0.120; p=0.586), leg pain within 2 weeks (MD, 0.005; p=0.293), VAS leg pain at final (MD, 0.099; p=0.099), ODI at final (MD, 0.141; p=0.093) were not different, VAS back pain within 2 weeks was more favorable in the Endo-LIF (MD, -1.538; 95% CI, -2.044 to -1.032; p<0.001). On the other hand, no statistically significant group difference in complication rate (relative risk [RR], 0.709; p=0.774), hospital stay (MD, -2.399; p=0.151), and pseudoarthrosis rate (RR, 1.284; p=0.736) were found. Conclusion : Relative to MIS-TLIF, immediate outcomes were favorable in Endo-LIF in terms of blood loss and immediate VAS back pain, although complication rate, mid-term clinical outcomes, and fusion rate were not different. However, the challenges for Endo-LIF include longer operation time which means a difficult learning curve and limited surgical indication which means patient selection bias. Larger-scale, well-designed study with long-term follow-up and randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm and update the results of this systematic review.