1.Anatomical Variations of Cerebral MR Venography: Is Gender Matter?.
Gourav GOYAL ; Rambir SINGH ; Nikhil BANSAL ; Vimal Kumar PALIWAL
Neurointervention 2016;11(2):92-98
PURPOSE: Knowledge of variations in the cerebral dural venous sinus anatomy seen on magnetic resonance (MR) venography is essential to avoid over-diagnosis of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). Very limited data is available on gender difference of the cerebral dural venous sinus anatomy variations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted to study the normal anatomy of the intracranial venous system and its normal variation, as depicted by 3D MR venography, in normal adults and any gender-related differences. RESULTS: A total of 1654 patients (582 men, 1072 women, age range 19 to 86 years, mean age: 37.98±13.83 years) were included in the study. Most common indication for MR venography was headache (75.4%). Hypoplastic left transverse sinus was the most common anatomical variation in 352 (21.3%) patients. Left transverse sinus was hypoplastic in more commonly in male in comparison to female (24.9% versus 19.3%, p = 0.009). Most common variation of superior sagittal sinus (SSS) was atresia of anterior one third SSS (15, 0.9%). Except hypoplastic left transverse sinus, rest of anatomical variations of the transverse and other sinuses were not significantly differ among both genders. CONCLUSION: Hypoplastic left transverse sinus is the most common anatomical variation and more common in male compared to female in the present study. Other anatomical variations of dural venous sinuses are not significantly differ among both genders.
Adult
;
Female
;
Headache
;
Humans
;
Male
;
Phlebography*
;
Retrospective Studies
;
Sinus Thrombosis, Intracranial
;
Superior Sagittal Sinus
2.Deformity Correction with Interbody Fusion Using Lateral versus Posterior Approach in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Systematic Review and Observational Meta-analysis
Samarth MITTAL ; Pudipeddi Venkata SUDHAKAR ; Kaustubh AHUJA ; Syed IFTHEKAR ; Gagandeep YADAV ; Shivendra SINHA ; Nikhil GOYAL ; Vishal VERMA ; Bhaskar SARKAR ; Pankaj KANDWAL
Asian Spine Journal 2023;17(2):431-451
This study was designed to systematically review and meta-analyze the functional and radiological outcomes between lateral and posterior approaches in adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS). Both lateral (lumbar, extreme, and oblique) and posterior interbody fusion (posterior lumbar and transforaminal) are used for deformity correction in patients with ADS with unclear comparison in this cohort of patients in the existing literature. A literature search using three electronic databases was performed to identify studies that reported outcomes of lateral (group L) and posterior interbody fusion (group P) in patients with ADS with curves of 10°–40°. Group P was further subdivided into minimally invasive surgery (MIS-P) and open posterior (Op-P) subgroups. Data on functional, radiological, and operative outcomes, length of hospital stay (LOHS), fusion rates, and complications were extracted and meta-analyzed using the random-effects model. A total of 18 studies (732 patients) met the inclusion criteria. No significant difference was found in functional and radiological outcomes between the two groups on data pooling. Total operative time in the MIS-P subgroup was less than that of group L (233.86 minutes vs. 401 minutes, p <0.05). The total blood loss in group L was less than that in the Op-P subgroup(477 mL vs. 1,325.6 mL, p <0.05). Group L had significantly less LOHS than the Op-P subgroup (4.15 days vs. 13.5 days, p <0.05). No significant difference was seen in fusion rates, but complications were seen except for transient sensorimotor weakness (group L: 24.3%, group P: 5.6%; p <0.05). Complications, such as postoperative thigh pain (7.7%), visceral injuries (2%), and retrograde ejaculation (3.7%), were seen only in group L while adjacent segment degeneration was seen only in group P (8.6%). Lateral approach has an advantage in blood loss and LOHS over the Op-P subgroup. The MIS-P subgroup has less operative time than group L, but with comparable blood loss and LOHS. No significant difference was found in functional, radiological, fusion rates, pseudoarthrosis, and complications, except for transient sensorimotor deficits. Few complications were approach-specific in each group.