Panya Luksanapruksa

Correlation and Reliability of Cervical Sagittal Alignment Parameters between Lateral Cervical Radiograph and Lateral Whole-Body EOS Stereoradiograph

Study Design Retrospective analysis. Objective To evaluate the correlation and reliability of cervical sagittal alignment parameters obtained from lateral cervical radiographs (XRs) compared with lateral whole-body stereoradiographs (SRs). Methods We evaluated adults with cervical deformity using both lateral XRs and lateral SRs obtained within 1 week of each other between 2010 and 2014. XR and SR images were measured by two independent spine surgeons using the following sagittal alignment parameters: C2–C7 sagittal Cobb angle (SCA), C2–C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), C1–C7 translational distance (C1–7), T1 slope (T1-S), neck tilt (NT), and thoracic inlet angle (TIA). Pearson correlation and paired t test were used for statistical analysis, with intra- and interrater reliability analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results A total of 35 patients were included in the study. We found excellent intrarater reliability for all sagittal alignment parameters in both the XR and SR groups with ICC ranging from 0.799 to 0.994 for XR and 0.791 to 0.995 for SR. Interrater reliability was also excellent for all parameters except NT and TIA, which had fair reliability. We also found excellent correlations between XR and SR measurements for most sagittal alignment parameters; SCA, SVA, and C1–C7 had r > 0.90, and only NT had r < 0.70. There was a significant difference between groups, with SR having lower measurements compared with XR for both SVA (0.68 cm lower, p < 0.001) and C1–C7 (1.02 cm lower, p < 0.001). There were no differences between groups for SCA, T1-S, NT, and TIA. Conclusion Whole-body stereoradiography appears to be a viable alternative for measuring cervical sagittal alignment parameters compared with standard radiography. XR and SR demonstrated excellent correlation for most sagittal alignment parameters except NT. However, SR had significantly lower average SVA and C1–C7 measurements than XR. The lower radiation exposure using single SR has to be weighed against its higher cost compared with XR.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of En Bloc Vertebrectomy Compared with Intralesional Resection for Giant Cell Tumors of the Mobile Spine

Study Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective To compare the recurrence and perioperative complication rate of en bloc vertebrectomy (EV) and intralesional resection (IR) in the giant cell tumor of the mobile spine (SGCT). Methods We systematically searched publications in the PubMed and Embase databases for reports of SGCTs, excluding the sacrum. Two reviewers independently assessed all publications. A meta-analysis was performed using local recurrence and postoperative complications as the primary outcomes of interest. Results There were four articles reporting recurrence and two articles reporting postoperative complications. All included articles were case series. In all, 91 patients were included; 49 were treated with IR and 42 were treated with EV. Local recurrence rates were 36.7 and 9.5% in the IR and EV groups, respectively. Rates of postoperative complications were 36.4% with IR and 11.1% with EV. Overall, patients treated with EV not only had a lower recurrence rate (relative risk [RR] 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09 to 0.52) but also had a lower postoperative complication rate (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.07 to 1.52) compared with IR. Conclusions Based on the limited data obtained from systematic review, SGCT patients treated with EV had a lower recurrence rate and fewer postoperative complications than those treated with IR.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness of preoperative embolization in surgery for metastatic spine disease

Background Preoperative embolization (PE) may decrease intraoperative blood loss (IBL) in decompressive surgery of hypervascular spinal metastases. However, no consensus has been found in other metastases and no meta-analysis which reviewed the benefit of PE in spinal metastases has been conducted. Objective To assess IBL in spinal metastases surgery in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and cohort studies comparing PE and a control group of non-embolized patients. Methods A systematic search of relevant publications in PubMed and EMBASE was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were RCTs and observational studies in patients with spinal metastases who underwent spine surgery and reported IBL. Meta-analysis was performed using standardized mean difference (SMD) and mean difference (MD) of IBL. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Results A total of 265 abstracts (126 from PubMed and 139 from Embase) were identified through database searching. The reviewers selected six studies for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis. The pooled SMD of the included studies was 0.58 (95% CI −0.10 to 1.25, p=0.09). Sensitivity analysis revealed that, if the study by Rehak et al was omitted, the pooled SMD was significantly changed to 0.88 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.36, p<0.001) and PE reduced the IBL significantly. The pooled MD was 708.3 mL (95% CI −224.4 to 1640.9 mL, p=0.14). If the results of the Rehak et al study were omitted, the pooled MD was significantly changed to 1226.9 mL (95% CI 345.8 to 2108.1 mL, p=0.006). Conclusions PE can be effective in reducing IBL in spinal metastases surgery in both renal cell carcinoma and mixed primary tumor groups.

Can standard anterior Smith-Robinson supramanubrial approach be utilized for approach down to T2 or T3?

PurposeThe aim of this study was to determine a plain radiographic criterion for determining the feasibility of using the standard anterior Smith-Robinson supramanubrial approach for anterior surgery down to T2 or T3.MethodsThe surgical database (2002–2014) was searched to identify patients with anterior cervical surgery to T2 or T3. A method to determine whether a standard anterior Smith-Robinson approach can be used to operate on the upper thoracic levels was evaluated. The surgeon chose the surgical approach preoperatively using a lateral radiograph by determining if a line from the intended skin incision to the lower instrumented level (LIV) passed above the top of the manubrium. If so, a standard Smith-Robinson approach was selected. Another spine surgeon then analyzed all patients who had anterior thoracic fusion to T2 or below. The lateral radiographs were retrospectively reviewed.ResultsA total of 44 patients who underwent anterior surgery down to T2 or T3 vertebrae were identified. T2 was the LIV in 39 patients. T3 was the LIV in five patients. No surgery was abandoned or converted to a difference approach after making the standard Smith-Robinson approach. To increase visualization, T1 corpectomy was necessary in 4 of 39 patients when T2 was the LIV. T2 corpectomy was necessary in 2 of 5 patients when T3 was the LIV.ConclusionIf a line from the intended skin incision to the LIV passes over the top of the manubrium, a standard Smith-Robinson approach without sternotomy can be successfully used.

Limitations of Using Microsoft Excel Version 2016 (MS Excel 2016) for Statistical Analysis for Medical Research.

Microsoft Excel (MS Excel) is a commonly used program for data collection and statistical analysis in biomedical research. However, this program has many limitations, including fewer functions that can be used for analysis and a limited number of total cells compared with dedicated statistical programs. MS Excel cannot complete analyses with blank cells, and cells must be selected manually for analysis. In addition, it requires multiple steps of data transformation and formulas to plot survival analysis graphs, among others. The Megastat add-on program, which will be supported by MS Excel 2016 soon, would eliminate some limitations of using statistic formulas within MS Excel.

Level of Evidence Descriptions With Examples.

The level of evidence (LOE) method provides journal readers with a quick appraisal of study quality. The most widely recognized LOE assessment tool is that from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and these guidelines are often adapted for other purposes. The assigned LOE typically depends on the design and quality of the study as well as the impact of the results. Because of the differing methods for classifying LOE, the author or journal reader should fully understand the criteria before assimilating data.

Authorship Considerations: What Qualifies?

Publications indicate academic achievement. Unjustified authorship is a violation of scientific integrity. However, many different authorship guidelines have been purposed. Subjective assessments of contributions may differ substantially when made by individual authors. Complex research structures including multicenter multidisciplinary studies further cloud the definition of authorship. New quantitative measurement of research contributions may help guide who deserves to be recognized as an author. Agreement of authorship and order of listing should be discussed at the beginning of any project likely to result in a publication.