Background and Objectives: There is no dedicated occlusive device for closing coronary artery fistulas (CAFs), and specific efficacy and safety data of various off-label occlusive devices for CAFs closure are scarce. Methods: Patients undergoing transcatheter closure of CAFs from January 2011 to December 2022 were included in the single-center retrospective study. The study population was divided into 2 groups: coils group (n=35) and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) occluders group (n=66). Results: No significant intergroup differences were observed in demographic characteristics except age. The presence of multiple CAF origins (54.3% vs. 4.5%, p<0.001) and multiple draining sites (51.4% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001) were more common in the coils group. In contrast, the presence of aneurysm (72.7% vs. 14.3%, p<0.001), and large fistula (75.8% vs. 37.1%, p<0.001) were more prevalent in the PDA occluders group. The acute procedural success rate of the PDA occluders group was higher compared to that of the coils group (87.9% vs.62.9%, adjusted odds ratio [OR], 7.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.59–32.64; p=0.01).In addition, no significant intergroup differences were noted in both the recanalization rate (7.8% vs. 20%, p=0.107) and the reintervention rate (3.1% vs. 8.6%, p=0.342). Conclusions Transcatheter closure of CAFs using PDA occluders was associated with significantly higher acute procedural success rates compared to coil embolization with comparable late outcomes.

Background and Objectives: There is no dedicated occlusive device for closing coronary artery fistulas (CAFs), and specific efficacy and safety data of various off-label occlusive devices for CAFs closure are scarce. Methods: Patients undergoing transcatheter closure of CAFs from January 2011 to December 2022 were included in the single-center retrospective study. The study population was divided into 2 groups: coils group (n=35) and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) occluders group (n=66). Results: No significant intergroup differences were observed in demographic characteristics except age. The presence of multiple CAF origins (54.3% vs. 4.5%, p<0.001) and multiple draining sites (51.4% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001) were more common in the coils group. In contrast, the presence of aneurysm (72.7% vs. 14.3%, p<0.001), and large fistula (75.8% vs. 37.1%, p<0.001) were more prevalent in the PDA occluders group. The acute procedural success rate of the PDA occluders group was higher compared to that of the coils group (87.9% vs.62.9%, adjusted odds ratio [OR], 7.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.59–32.64; p=0.01).In addition, no significant intergroup differences were noted in both the recanalization rate (7.8% vs. 20%, p=0.107) and the reintervention rate (3.1% vs. 8.6%, p=0.342). Conclusions Transcatheter closure of CAFs using PDA occluders was associated with significantly higher acute procedural success rates compared to coil embolization with comparable late outcomes.

Background and Objectives: There is no dedicated occlusive device for closing coronary artery fistulas (CAFs), and specific efficacy and safety data of various off-label occlusive devices for CAFs closure are scarce. Methods: Patients undergoing transcatheter closure of CAFs from January 2011 to December 2022 were included in the single-center retrospective study. The study population was divided into 2 groups: coils group (n=35) and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) occluders group (n=66). Results: No significant intergroup differences were observed in demographic characteristics except age. The presence of multiple CAF origins (54.3% vs. 4.5%, p<0.001) and multiple draining sites (51.4% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001) were more common in the coils group. In contrast, the presence of aneurysm (72.7% vs. 14.3%, p<0.001), and large fistula (75.8% vs. 37.1%, p<0.001) were more prevalent in the PDA occluders group. The acute procedural success rate of the PDA occluders group was higher compared to that of the coils group (87.9% vs.62.9%, adjusted odds ratio [OR], 7.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.59–32.64; p=0.01).In addition, no significant intergroup differences were noted in both the recanalization rate (7.8% vs. 20%, p=0.107) and the reintervention rate (3.1% vs. 8.6%, p=0.342). Conclusions Transcatheter closure of CAFs using PDA occluders was associated with significantly higher acute procedural success rates compared to coil embolization with comparable late outcomes.

Background and Objectives: There is no dedicated occlusive device for closing coronary artery fistulas (CAFs), and specific efficacy and safety data of various off-label occlusive devices for CAFs closure are scarce. Methods: Patients undergoing transcatheter closure of CAFs from January 2011 to December 2022 were included in the single-center retrospective study. The study population was divided into 2 groups: coils group (n=35) and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) occluders group (n=66). Results: No significant intergroup differences were observed in demographic characteristics except age. The presence of multiple CAF origins (54.3% vs. 4.5%, p<0.001) and multiple draining sites (51.4% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001) were more common in the coils group. In contrast, the presence of aneurysm (72.7% vs. 14.3%, p<0.001), and large fistula (75.8% vs. 37.1%, p<0.001) were more prevalent in the PDA occluders group. The acute procedural success rate of the PDA occluders group was higher compared to that of the coils group (87.9% vs.62.9%, adjusted odds ratio [OR], 7.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.59–32.64; p=0.01).In addition, no significant intergroup differences were noted in both the recanalization rate (7.8% vs. 20%, p=0.107) and the reintervention rate (3.1% vs. 8.6%, p=0.342). Conclusions Transcatheter closure of CAFs using PDA occluders was associated with significantly higher acute procedural success rates compared to coil embolization with comparable late outcomes.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to describe utilization, demographics, complications, and revisions for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with stenosis undergoing decompression or decompression with fusion in the United States. Methods: A national insurance database was used to identify patients who underwent either decompression and fusion or decompression alone for management of DS from 2010–2022. Utilization trends, demographics, and complications for each procedure were compared. Results: A total of 162,878 patients were identified, of which 78,043 patients underwent combined single-level lumbar decompression and fusion and 84,835 underwent single-level lumbar decompression alone. Between 2010–2021, lumbar decompression and fusion became the predominant surgical intervention for DS in 2016 and continued to account for more than half of all procedures during the remainder of the study period. Factors such as age, sex, comorbidities, geographic region, and physician specialty training were associated with procedure choice. Decompression with fusion was associated with a lower risk of revision surgery up to 5 years postoperatively and an overall lower incidence of 30-day complications. Conclusion Decompression with fusion has become the most common treatment for lumbar DS over the past decade despite a lack of compelling evidence supporting its use compared to decompression alone. A variety of patient and surgeon-specific factors is associated with procedure choice. After accounting for cofounders, we identified treatment-specific complications that may be valuable when counseling patients.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to describe utilization, demographics, complications, and revisions for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with stenosis undergoing decompression or decompression with fusion in the United States. Methods: A national insurance database was used to identify patients who underwent either decompression and fusion or decompression alone for management of DS from 2010–2022. Utilization trends, demographics, and complications for each procedure were compared. Results: A total of 162,878 patients were identified, of which 78,043 patients underwent combined single-level lumbar decompression and fusion and 84,835 underwent single-level lumbar decompression alone. Between 2010–2021, lumbar decompression and fusion became the predominant surgical intervention for DS in 2016 and continued to account for more than half of all procedures during the remainder of the study period. Factors such as age, sex, comorbidities, geographic region, and physician specialty training were associated with procedure choice. Decompression with fusion was associated with a lower risk of revision surgery up to 5 years postoperatively and an overall lower incidence of 30-day complications. Conclusion Decompression with fusion has become the most common treatment for lumbar DS over the past decade despite a lack of compelling evidence supporting its use compared to decompression alone. A variety of patient and surgeon-specific factors is associated with procedure choice. After accounting for cofounders, we identified treatment-specific complications that may be valuable when counseling patients.

Background: There is considerable heterogeneity in findings and a lack of consensus regarding the interplay between osteoporosis and outcomes in patients with lumbar degenerative spine disease. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather and analyze existing data on the effect of osteoporosis on radiographic, surgical, and clinical outcomes following surgery for lumbar degenerative spinal disease. Methods: A systematic review was performed to determine the effect of osteoporosis on the incidence of adverse outcomes after surgical intervention for lumbar degenerative spinal diseases. The approach focused on the radiographic outcomes, reoperation rates, and other medical and surgical complications. Subsequently, a meta-analysis was performed on the eligible studies. Results: The results of the meta-analysis suggested that osteoporotic patients experienced increased rates of adjacent segment disease (ASD; p=0.015) and cage subsidence (p=0.001) while demonstrating lower reoperation rates than non-osteoporotic patients (7.4% vs. 13.1%; p=0.038). The systematic review also indicated that the length of stay, overall costs, rates of screw loosening, and rates of wound and other medical complications may increase in patients with a lower bone mineral density. Fusion rates, as well as patient-reported and clinical outcomes, did not differ significantly between osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic patients. Conclusions Osteoporosis was associated with an increased risk of ASD, cage migration, and possibly postoperative screw loosening, as well as longer hospital stays, incurring higher costs and an increased likelihood of postoperative complications. However, a link was not established between osteoporosis and poor clinical outcomes.