Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

Objective: : Dural substitutes have been widely used in decompressive craniectomy to prevent adhesion, and have significantly reduced blood loss and operation time. However, there are only limited studies providing information regarding detailed techniques and the specific operation time that is associated with good prognoses. In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness of using a dural substitute as an anti-adhesive material during cranioplasty, focusing on technical details and operation time from incision to bone closure. Methods: : A retrospectively reviewed total of 66 patients were included who underwent a craniectomy and subsequent cranioplasty caused by either a severe traumatic brain injury (n=35) or malignant infarction (n=31). The patients were divided into two groups depending on whether Neuro-Patch was used or not (31 in the Neuro-Patch group, 35 in the non-Neuro-Patch group). Propensity score matching was used to minimize the differences. Associated morbidities as well as operation time, and blood loss were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results: : To prevent adhesion, Neuro-Patch was placed as an onlay, enough to cover the surrounding skull at least 1 cm beyond the bone edges. A small piece was also placed over the temporalis muscle during the craniectomy. A step-by-step dissection was performed to minimize retraction-related injury during the subsequent cranioplasty. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (54.6±34.9 vs. 149.0±70.8 mL, p<0.001) and the mean time from incision to bone closure in the Neuro-Patch group was 40.8±14.3 minutes, which was significantly lower than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (91.5±38.2 minutes) as well. For each analysis of complications, the differences were not significant, however, the overall complication rate was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (9.7%) than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (42.9%). Conclusion : Neuro-Patch can be used safely and effectively as an anti-adhesive substitute during cranioplasty. To improve clinical outcomes as well as intraoperative parameters including the time from incision to bone closure, planned placement of Neuro-Patch during craniectomy and the step-by-step dissection during cranioplasty is important.

Objective: : Dural substitutes have been widely used in decompressive craniectomy to prevent adhesion, and have significantly reduced blood loss and operation time. However, there are only limited studies providing information regarding detailed techniques and the specific operation time that is associated with good prognoses. In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness of using a dural substitute as an anti-adhesive material during cranioplasty, focusing on technical details and operation time from incision to bone closure. Methods: : A retrospectively reviewed total of 66 patients were included who underwent a craniectomy and subsequent cranioplasty caused by either a severe traumatic brain injury (n=35) or malignant infarction (n=31). The patients were divided into two groups depending on whether Neuro-Patch was used or not (31 in the Neuro-Patch group, 35 in the non-Neuro-Patch group). Propensity score matching was used to minimize the differences. Associated morbidities as well as operation time, and blood loss were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results: : To prevent adhesion, Neuro-Patch was placed as an onlay, enough to cover the surrounding skull at least 1 cm beyond the bone edges. A small piece was also placed over the temporalis muscle during the craniectomy. A step-by-step dissection was performed to minimize retraction-related injury during the subsequent cranioplasty. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (54.6±34.9 vs. 149.0±70.8 mL, p<0.001) and the mean time from incision to bone closure in the Neuro-Patch group was 40.8±14.3 minutes, which was significantly lower than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (91.5±38.2 minutes) as well. For each analysis of complications, the differences were not significant, however, the overall complication rate was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (9.7%) than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (42.9%). Conclusion : Neuro-Patch can be used safely and effectively as an anti-adhesive substitute during cranioplasty. To improve clinical outcomes as well as intraoperative parameters including the time from incision to bone closure, planned placement of Neuro-Patch during craniectomy and the step-by-step dissection during cranioplasty is important.

Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

Objective: : Dural substitutes have been widely used in decompressive craniectomy to prevent adhesion, and have significantly reduced blood loss and operation time. However, there are only limited studies providing information regarding detailed techniques and the specific operation time that is associated with good prognoses. In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness of using a dural substitute as an anti-adhesive material during cranioplasty, focusing on technical details and operation time from incision to bone closure. Methods: : A retrospectively reviewed total of 66 patients were included who underwent a craniectomy and subsequent cranioplasty caused by either a severe traumatic brain injury (n=35) or malignant infarction (n=31). The patients were divided into two groups depending on whether Neuro-Patch was used or not (31 in the Neuro-Patch group, 35 in the non-Neuro-Patch group). Propensity score matching was used to minimize the differences. Associated morbidities as well as operation time, and blood loss were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results: : To prevent adhesion, Neuro-Patch was placed as an onlay, enough to cover the surrounding skull at least 1 cm beyond the bone edges. A small piece was also placed over the temporalis muscle during the craniectomy. A step-by-step dissection was performed to minimize retraction-related injury during the subsequent cranioplasty. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (54.6±34.9 vs. 149.0±70.8 mL, p<0.001) and the mean time from incision to bone closure in the Neuro-Patch group was 40.8±14.3 minutes, which was significantly lower than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (91.5±38.2 minutes) as well. For each analysis of complications, the differences were not significant, however, the overall complication rate was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (9.7%) than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (42.9%). Conclusion : Neuro-Patch can be used safely and effectively as an anti-adhesive substitute during cranioplasty. To improve clinical outcomes as well as intraoperative parameters including the time from incision to bone closure, planned placement of Neuro-Patch during craniectomy and the step-by-step dissection during cranioplasty is important.

Objective: : Dural substitutes have been widely used in decompressive craniectomy to prevent adhesion, and have significantly reduced blood loss and operation time. However, there are only limited studies providing information regarding detailed techniques and the specific operation time that is associated with good prognoses. In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness of using a dural substitute as an anti-adhesive material during cranioplasty, focusing on technical details and operation time from incision to bone closure. Methods: : A retrospectively reviewed total of 66 patients were included who underwent a craniectomy and subsequent cranioplasty caused by either a severe traumatic brain injury (n=35) or malignant infarction (n=31). The patients were divided into two groups depending on whether Neuro-Patch was used or not (31 in the Neuro-Patch group, 35 in the non-Neuro-Patch group). Propensity score matching was used to minimize the differences. Associated morbidities as well as operation time, and blood loss were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results: : To prevent adhesion, Neuro-Patch was placed as an onlay, enough to cover the surrounding skull at least 1 cm beyond the bone edges. A small piece was also placed over the temporalis muscle during the craniectomy. A step-by-step dissection was performed to minimize retraction-related injury during the subsequent cranioplasty. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (54.6±34.9 vs. 149.0±70.8 mL, p<0.001) and the mean time from incision to bone closure in the Neuro-Patch group was 40.8±14.3 minutes, which was significantly lower than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (91.5±38.2 minutes) as well. For each analysis of complications, the differences were not significant, however, the overall complication rate was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (9.7%) than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (42.9%). Conclusion : Neuro-Patch can be used safely and effectively as an anti-adhesive substitute during cranioplasty. To improve clinical outcomes as well as intraoperative parameters including the time from incision to bone closure, planned placement of Neuro-Patch during craniectomy and the step-by-step dissection during cranioplasty is important.

Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

Objective: : Advancements in AVM surgical techniques for cerebral arteriovenous malformation (AVM) underscore its efficacy. Our research aims to showcase the positive outcomes of treating low-grade AVMs surgically, focusing on safety and effectiveness. Methods: : We retrospectively reviewed 55 patients (36 males and 19 females; average age 37.4 years) with Spetzler-Martin (S-M) grade 1 and 2 AVMs who underwent surgical resection between January 2009 and December 2022. Results: : In our study, 55 patients with S-M grade 1 and 2 AVMs underwent surgical resection, evenly divided between grades 1 (50.9%) and 2 (49.1%). Intracranial hemorrhage was the primary symptom in 74.5% of cases. Pre-operative Glasgow coma scale (GCS) scores revealed 69.1% of patients scored above 13, with 18% below 8. Successful resection was achieved in 87.3%. Postoperatively, 95.5% of ruptured and 90.9% of unruptured AVM patients showed lower or same modified Rankin scale scores. Poorer outcomes were significantly linked to lower GCS scores and intranidal/flow-related aneurysms through multivariate logistic regression. Postoperative seizures noted in nine patients, were exclusive to the ruptured AVM group. Conclusion : Our findings indicate surgical resection as a beneficial treatment for low-grade AVMs, yielding high cure rates and positive functional outcomes in both ruptured and unruptured cases. Preoperative GCS scores and the presence of associated aneurysms are predictive of postoperative functional status. Additionally, managing postoperative seizures effectively is key to enhancing prognosis.