Daniel Yavin

Carotid endarterectomy versus stenting: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to update the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. METHODS A comprehensive search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, bibliographies of included articles and past systematic reviews, and abstract lists of recent scientific conferences. For each reported outcome, a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The I2 statistic was used as a measure of heterogeneity. RESULTS Twelve RCTs enrolling 6,973 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Carotid artery stenting was associated with a significantly greater odds of periprocedural stroke (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.47) and a significantly lower odds of periprocedural myocardial infarction (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.78) and cranial neuropathy (OR 0.08, 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.16). The odds of periprocedural death (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.18), target vessel restenosis (OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.06), and access-related hematoma were similar following either intervention (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.21). CONCLUSIONS In comparison with CEA, CAS is associated with a greater odds of stroke and a lower odds of myocardial infarction. While the results our meta-analysis support the continued use of CEA as the standard of care in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis, CAS is a viable alternative in patients at elevated risk of cardiac complications.

Diagnostic accuracy of intraocular pressure measurement for the detection of raised intracranial pressure: meta-analysis: a systematic review.

OBJECT Because clinical examination and imaging may be unreliable indicators of intracranial hypertension, intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement has been proposed as a noninvasive method of diagnosis. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the correlation between IOP and intracranial pressure (ICP) and the diagnostic accuracy of IOP measurement for detection of intracranial hypertension. METHODS The authors searched bibliographic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1950 to March 2013, references of included studies, and conference abstracts for studies comparing IOP and invasive ICP measurement. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, and extracted data. Correlation coefficients, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird methods and bivariate random effects models. The I(2) statistic was used as a measure of heterogeneity. RESULTS Among 355 identified citations, 12 studies that enrolled 546 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled correlation coefficient between IOP and ICP was 0.44 (95% CI 0.26-0.63, I(2) = 97.7%, p < 0.001). The summary sensitivity and specificity for IOP for diagnosing intracranial hypertension were 81% (95% CI 26%-98%, I(2) = 95.2%, p < 0.01) and 95% (95% CI 43%-100%, I(2) = 97.7%, p < 0.01), respectively. The summary positive and negative likelihood ratios were 14.8 (95% CI 0.5-417.7) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.02-1.7), respectively. When ICP and IOP measurements were taken within 1 hour of another, correlation between the measures improved. CONCLUSIONS Although a modest aggregate correlation was found between IOP and ICP, the pooled diagnostic accuracy suggests that IOP measurement may be of clinical utility in the detection of intracranial hypertension. Given the significant heterogeneity between included studies, further investigation is required prior to the adoption of IOP in the evaluation of intracranial hypertension into routine practice.

Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Due to uncertain evidence, lumbar fusion for degenerative indications is associated with the greatest measured practice variation of any surgical procedure. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current evidence on the comparative safety and efficacy of lumbar fusion, decompression‐alone, or nonoperative care for degenerative indications. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to June 30, 2016). Comparative studies reporting validated measures of safety or efficacy were included. Treatment effects were calculated through DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 65 studies (19 randomized controlled trials, 16 prospective cohort studies, 15 retrospective cohort studies, and 15 registries) enrolling a total of 302 620 patients. Disability, pain, and patient satisfaction following fusion, decompression‐alone, or nonoperative care were dependent on surgical indications and study methodology. Relative to decompression‐alone, the risk of reoperation following fusion was increased for spinal stenosis (relative risk [RR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06‐1.28) and decreased for spondylolisthesis (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68‐0.83). Among patients with spinal stenosis, complications were more frequent following fusion (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.18‐2.96). Mortality was not significantly associated with any treatment modality. CONCLUSION: Positive clinical change was greatest in patients undergoing fusion for spondylolisthesis while complications and the risk of reoperation limited the benefit of fusion for spinal stenosis. The relative safety and efficacy of fusion for chronic low back pain suggests careful patient selection is required (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews number, CRD42015020153).

Age-specific global epidemiology of hydrocephalus: Systematic review, metanalysis and global birth surveillance

Background Hydrocephalus is a debilitating disorder, affecting all age groups. Evaluation of its global epidemiology is required for healthcare planning and resource allocation. Objectives To define age-specific global prevalence and incidence of hydrocephalus. Methods Population-based studies reporting prevalence of hydrocephalus were identified (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (1985–2017)). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Two authors reviewed abstracts, full text articles and abstracted data. Metanalysis and meta-regressions were used to assess associations between key variables. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. Main outcome of interest was hydrocephalus prevalence among pediatric (≤ 18 years), adults (19–64 years), and elderly (≥ 65) patients. Annual hydrocephalus incidence stratified by country income level and folate fortification requirements were obtained (2003–2014) from the International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research (ICBDSR). Results Of 2,460 abstracts, 52 met review eligibility criteria (aggregate population 171,558,651). Mean hydrocephalus prevalence was 85/100,000 [95% CI 62, 116]. The prevalence was 88/100,000 [95% CI 72, 107] in pediatrics; 11/100,000 [95% CI 5, 25] in adults; and 175/100,000 [95% CI 67, 458] in the elderly. The ICBDSR-based incidence of hydrocephalus diagnosed at birth remained stable over 11 years: 81/100,000 [95% CI 69, 96]. A significantly lower incidence was identified in high-income countries. Conclusion This systematic review established age-specific global hydrocephalus prevalence. While high-income countries had a lower hydrocephalus incidence according to the ICBDSR registry, folate fortification status was not associated with incidence. Our findings may inform future healthcare resource allocation and study.

Intrathecal morphine in lumbar spine surgery: a novel injection technique

Background: Intrathecal morphine (ITM) is an efficacious method of providing post-operative analgesia. Despite adoption in many surgical fields, ITM has yet to become a standard of care in lumbar spine surgery. This may in part be attributed to concerns over precipitating a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak following dural puncture. Methods: The dural sac is penetrated obliquely at a 30° angle to prevent overlap of dural and arachnoid puncture sites. Oblique injection in instances of limited dural exposure is made possible by introducing a 60° bend to a standard 30-gauge needle. Participating spinal surgeons were provided with brief instructions outlining the injection technique. Adherence and complications were collected prospectively. Results: The technique was applied to 98 cases of elective lumbar fusion at our institution. Two cases (2.0%) of non-adherence followed pre-injection dural tear. 96 cases of oblique ITM injection resulted in no attributable instances of post-operative CSF leakage. Two cases (2.1%) of transient, self-limited CSF leakage immediately following ITM injection were observed without associated sequelae or requirement for further intervention. Conclusions: Oblique dural puncture is not associated with increased incidence of post-operative CSF leakage. This safe and reliable method of delivery of ITM should be routinely considered in lumbar spine surgery.