Humans ; Peripheral Arterial Disease/epidemiology*

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare three widely used interbody fusion approaches in regard to their ability to correct sagittal balance, including pelvic parameters. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Restoration of sagittal balance in lumbar spine surgery is associated with better postoperative outcomes. Various interbody fusion techniques can help to correct sagittal balance, with no clear consensus on which technique offers the best correction. METHODS: The charts and imaging of patients who have undergone surgery through either open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), minimally invasive TLIF (MIS TLIF), or oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) were retrospectively reviewed. The following sagittal balance parameters were measured pre- and postoperatively: segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, disk height, pelvic tilt, and pelvic incidence. Data on postoperative complications were gathered. RESULTS: Only OLIF managed to significantly improve segmental lordosis (4.4°, p<0.001) and lumbar lordosis (4.8°, p=0.049). All approaches significantly augmented disk height, with OLIF having the greatest effect (3.7°, p<0.001). No approaches were shown to significantly correct pelvic tilt. Pelvic incidence remained unchanged in all approaches. Open TLIF was the only approach with a higher rate of postoperative complications (33%, p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The OLIF approach might offer greater correction of sagittal balance over open and MIS TLIF, mainly in regard to segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, and disk height. MIS TLIF, although offering more limited access than open TLIF, was not inferior to open TLIF in regard to sagittal balance correction. A higher rate of complications was shown for open TLIF than the other approaches, possibly due to its more invasive nature.
Animals ; Cohort Studies ; Consensus ; Humans ; Incidence ; Lordosis ; Postoperative Complications ; Retrospective Studies ; Spine

Background: The Exoscope is a novel high-definition digital camera system. There is limited evidence signifying the use of exoscopic devices in microsurgery. This trial objectively assesses the effects of the use of the Exoscope as an alternative to the standard operating microscope (OM) on the performance of experts in a simulated microvascular anastomosis. Methods: Modus V Exoscope and OM were used by expert microsurgeons to perform standardized tasks. Hand-motion analyzer measured the total pathlength (TP), total movements (TM), total time (TT), and quality of end-product anastomosis. A clinical margin of TT was performed to prove non-inferiority. An expert performed consecutive microvascular anastomoses to provide the exoscopic learning curve until reached plateau in TT. Results: Ten micro sutures and 10 anastomoses were performed. Analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in performing micro sutures for TP, TM, and TT. There was statistical significance in TM and TT, however, marginal non-significant difference in TP regarding microvascular anastomoses performance. The intimal suture line analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences. Non-inferiority results based on clinical inferiority margin (Δ) of TT=10 minutes demonstrated an absolute difference of 0.07 minutes between OM and Exoscope cohorts. A 51%, 58%, and 46% improvement or reduction was achieved in TT, TM, TP, respectively, during the exoscopic microvascular anastomosis learning curve. Conclusions This study demonstrated that experts’ Exoscope anastomoses appear non-inferior to the OM anastomoses. Exoscopic microvascular anastomosis was more time consuming but end-product (patency) in not clinically inferior. Experts’ “warm-up” learning curve is steep but swift and may prove to reach clinical equality.

Purpose: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains a devastating complication of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Minimally invasive PD (MIPD), including laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) approaches, have comparable POPF rates to open PD (OPD). However, we hypothesize that the likelihood of having a more severe POPF, as defined as clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF), would be higher in an MIPD relative to OPD. Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) targeted pancreatectomy dataset (2014–2020) was reviewed for any POPF after OPD. Propensity score matching (PSM) compared MIPD to OPD, and then RPD to LPD. Results: Among 3,083 patients who developed a POPF, 2,843 (92.2%) underwent OPD and 240 (7.8%) MIPD; of these, 25.0% were LPD (n = 60) and 75.0% RPD (n = 180). Grade B POPF was observed in 45.4% (n = 1,400), and grade C in 6.0% (n = 185). After PSM, MIPD patients had higher rates of CR-POPF (47.3% OPD vs. 54.4% MIPD, p = 0.037), as well as higher reoperation (9.1% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.006), delayed gastric emptying (29.2% vs. 35.8%, p = 0.041), and readmission rates (28.2% vs. 35.1%, p = 0.032). However, CR-POPF rates were comparable between LPD and RPD (56.8% vs. 49.3%, p = 0.408). Conclusion The impact of POPF is more clinically pronounced after MIPD than OPD with a more complex postoperative course. The difference appears to be attributed to the minimally invasive environment itself as no difference was noted between LPD and RPD. A clear biological explanation of this clinical observation remains missing. Further studies are warranted.