DOCSLIB.ORG

Spinal Cord Injury: Is Monitoring from the Injury Site the Future? Samira Saadoun and Marios C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spinal Cord Injury: Is Monitoring from the Injury Site the Future? Samira Saadoun and Marios C Saadoun and Papadopoulos Critical Care (2016) 20:308 DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1490-3 VIEWPOINT Open Access Spinal cord injury: is monitoring from the injury site the future? Samira Saadoun and Marios C. Papadopoulos* within 24 h compared with >24 h after cervical TSCI Abstract [4]. This study was underpowered, not randomized, and This paper challenges the current management of not blinded. In the UK [3] and internationally [2, 5] acute traumatic spinal cord injury based on our there is no consensus on the timing or even the role of experience with monitoring from the injury site in the surgery for TSCI. Below, we argue that early surgery is neurointensive care unit. We argue that the concept controversial because surgeons perform bony decom- of bony decompression is inadequate. The concept of pression, but fail to relieve the dural compression. optimum spinal cord perfusion pressure, which differs between patients, is introduced. Such variability Medical and nursing management suggests individualized patient treatment. Failing to There are no drugs that improve outcome after TSCI. The optimize spinal cord perfusion limits the entry of North American Spinal Cord Injury Studies suggested that systemically administered drugs into the injured cord. methylprednisolone given within 8 h after TSCI improves We conclude that monitoring from the injury site outcome [6, 7], but their findings have been criticized; helps optimize management and should be subjected methylprednisolone is no longer standard of care [3, 8, 9]. to a trial to determine whether it improves outcome. The optimum mean arterial pressure (MAP) after TSCI is Keywords: Blood pressure, CNS injury, Clinical trial, unknown. The American Association of Neurological Microdialysis, Monitoring, Neurocritical care, Spinal Surgeons recommends a MAP of 85–90 mmHg for 7 days cord injury, Surgery with little supporting evidence [10]. In the UK, blood pressure management is variable with 23 % of NICU spe- cialists aiming for MAP >60 mmHg, 54 % >80 mmHg, Background and 15 % within 20 % of what is considered normal for – Every year, 15 40 people per million suffer a traumatic age [3]. The effects on the injured cord of different anes- spinal cord injury (TSCI) [1]. Many TSCI patients are thetics, altering arterial pCO2, administering vasopressors initially admitted to a neurointensive care unit (NICU), or mannitol, and patient position in bed are also unclear. but their management is variable. This review introduces In the UK, 96 % of neuroanesthesiologists avoid N2O[3] novel concepts to aid the management of acute TSCI in which elevates intracranial pressure (ICP), though its NICU based on our findings that: 1) the dura causes effect on intraspinal pressure (ISP) is unknown. Most spinal cord compression at the injury site; 2) each pa- surgeons fix the spine and mobilize patients early [2], but tient has an optimum spinal cord perfusion pressure; in the UK Midlands Spinal Injuries Centre patients were and 3) patient position in bed influences cord perfusion. kept flat for 6 weeks after TSCI with an equally good out- comes [11]. Such variability in practice suggests that the Patient management optimum medical and nursing management are unknown. Surgical management Below, we show how neuromonitoring may be used to Some surgeons recommend early bony decompression, optimize management. but others do not [2, 3]. The Surgical Timing in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study showed better outcome at How to optimize management 6 months in patients who had decompressive surgery History of monitoring from the injury site In 2009, whilst studying the role of the water channel * Correspondence: [email protected] Academic Neurosurgery Unit, St. George’s, University of London, Cranmer protein AQP4 in TSCI in mice, Dr Saadoun noticed that Terrace, Tooting, London SW17 0RE, UK the injured cord was compressed against the dura, based © 2016 The Author(s). Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Saadoun and Papadopoulos Critical Care (2016) 20:308 Page 2 of 9 on myelograms and ISP measurements [12]. She spine is fixed, it is difficult to see on MRI. For these rea- wondered whether the same occurs in TSCI patients. To sons, ISP has not attracted the same interest as ICP. investigate this, we set up a clinical trial termed Injured Spinal Cord Pressure Evaluation (ISCoPE), aiming to Technique of monitoring from the injury site monitor ISP from the injury site in humans. By 2014, we The probe is inserted intradurally during surgery at the had monitored the ISP in 18 patients with severe TSCI injury site to monitor ISP for a week (Fig. 1a). The probe and had shown that ISP is high and potentially detri- cannot be inserted in the NICU, thus precluding moni- mental [13]. A detailed morphological and spectral ana- toring non-surgical patients. ISP monitoring is tech- lysis of the ISP signals followed [14]. Our studies led to nically simple and safe based on data from 42 patients the idea of dural spinal cord compression that causes [19]. The probe is easily removed in the NICU. compartmentalization at the injury site [15–17]. We The ISP and ICP waveforms are similar with three thus evaluated the effect of duroplasty after TSCI [18]. characteristic peaks, identical Fourier transforms, and In 2016, we reviewed all ISCoPE patients and demon- identical shape change as ISP/ICP rise [14] (Fig. 1b). strated the safety and probe placement accuracy of the Thus, mathematically, the ISP signal can be subjected to technique [19]. Multi-modality monitoring from the the same analyses as the ICP signal [25]. Several parame- injury site was introduced in the same year [20], in- ters can be computed from these signals that provide cluding a novel analysis technique using Kohonen self- physiological information about the injured cord (Table 1). organizing maps [21]. The ISCoPE studies are ongoing. It is important to note that we monitor ISP from the sub- dural space, which is less invasive than intraparenchymal Brain versus spinal cord injury ISP. When the injured cord is swollen and compressed Neuromonitoring is the standard of care for acute severe against the dura, subdural ISP equals intraparenchymal traumatic brain injury (TBI). We use the term neuromo- ISP at the injury site [13, 17, 26]. After a mild TSCI, the nitoring to mean monitoring ICP, tissue oxygenation, spinal cord may not be compressed against the dura; in etc., in the NICU, rather than intraoperative neuro- this case, the relation between subdural versus intrapar- physiological monitoring. Though a recent study sug- enchymal ISP is unknown. To date, we have only moni- gested that ICP monitoring does not improve outcome tored ISP from patients with severe TSCI. [22], the findings are confounded by a delay in the start It is also possible to perform multi-modality monitor- of monitoring and no rehabilitation after discharge from ing by placing ISP and MD probes on the spinal cord the intensive care unit. Systematic reviews suggest that surface at the injury site [20]. In our recent study of 14 ICP monitoring in TBI reduces mortality [23] and in- TSCI patients, we found that surface MD monitoring is creases the chance of a favorable outcome [24]. There safe [20]. There was severe metabolic derangement at are advocates of multi-modality monitoring from the in- the injury site that correlated with the severity of injury. jury site including microdialysis (MD), oxygen, blood Below, we discuss how MD can be used to determine flow, and electrocorticography based on the idea that the optimum spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPPopt) secondary damage is multifactorial and arises not only and optimum tissue glucose concentration as well as from ischemia, but also from metabolic disturbance and maximize the penetration of systemically administered spreading depolarizations. Probes are routinely intro- drugs into the injury site. duced into the injured brain, but no such monitoring exists for TSCI. Animal models Several reasons may account for the lack of neuromo- After TSCI in mice, the injured cord swells and is com- nitoring in TSCI. First, there is concern that inserting pressed against the dura thus generating high ISP [12]. probes exacerbates spinal cord damage. Second, spinal Mice that lack the water channel protein aquaporin-4 probes require surgery for insertion. Third, many TSCIs have reduced spinal cord edema after TSCI with im- are managed by orthopedic surgeons not accustomed to proved outcome. Reducing the elevated ISP in a rat neuromonitoring. Fourth, the clinical impact of elevated contusion TSCI model also improved outcome [27]. In a ICP is easy to detect in anesthetized brain-injured pig contusion TSCI model, increased thecal sac dimen- patients as a loss of pupillary light reflex, dilated pupil, sions were associated with reduced cord compression and cardiovascular instability, and, ultimately, brain death. In reduced injury site ISP [28]. Durotomy reduced intrapar- contrast, increased ISP is difficult to detect in anesthe- enchymal ISP after TSCI in ex-vivo pig spinal cords [29]. tized TSCI patients. This requires monitoring of motor In a rat contusion TSCI model, durotomy with duroplasty or sensory evoked responses, which is not routinely improved outcome more than durotomy without duro- done. Fifth, CT scans are routinely used in TBI to decide plasty [27]. After rat TSCI, durotomy without duroplasty management, e.g., decompressive craniectomy. In con- was associated with more macrophage accumulation, cys- trast, the injured cord is invisible on CT and, once the tic cavitation, and fibroblast proliferation than durotomy Saadoun and Papadopoulos Critical Care (2016) 20:308 Page 3 of 9 Fig.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Acute High Cervical Disc Herniation: a Confounding Presentation and New Algorithm to Ensure Correct Diagnosis
    Central Annals of Emergency Surgery Bringing Excellence in Open Access Case Report *Corresponding author Bijan J. Ameri, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Broward Health Medical Center, 1227 SW 19th Ave. Fort Acute High Cervical Disc Lauderdale, FL 33312, USA, Email: Submitted: 13 February 2018 Herniation: A Confounding Accepted: 27 February 2018 Published: 28 February 2018 Copyright Presentation and New © 2018 Ameri et al. ISSN: 2573-1017 Algorithm to Ensure Correct OPEN ACCESS Diagnosis Keywords William A. Kunkle1, Bijan J. Ameri2*, Michael O. Madden2, • Cervical disc; Cervical spine surgery; Discectomy; Spinal decompression surgery; Cervical disc 3 4 Stuart H. Hershman , and Justin J. Park herniation; Cervical; Spine; High disc herniation; 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, USA Stroke; Dissection; CTA; MRA 2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Broward Health Medical Center, USA 3Department of Orthoapaedic Surgery, Massachussetts General Hospital, USA 4Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Maryland Spine Center at Mercy Hospital, USA Abstract High cervical disc herniation (C2/3 and C3/4) is a rare and potentially debilitating injury. Most cervical disc herniations occur at C5/6, or C6/7; less than 1% occurs at C2/3 and only 4% to 8% at C3/4. Patients with a high cervical disc herniation can present with headache, neck pain, and unilateral numbness and weakness. Diagnostic tests such as non-contrast computed tomography (CT) of the brain and angiogram of the neck are commonly utilized to rule out cerebral vascular accident (CVA) and/or carotid artery dissection; these pathologies can present with similar symptoms, however these commonly obtained tests will often fail to diagnose a high cervical disc herniation.
    [Show full text]
  • Indications for Fusion Following Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Neurosurg Focus 3 (2): Article 2, 1997 Indications for fusion following decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis Mark W. Fox, M.D., and Burton M. Onofrio, M.D. Neurosurgery Associates, Limited, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Department of Neurosurgery, The Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a common condition affecting middle-aged and elderly people. Significant controversy exists concerning the appropriate indications for fusion following decompressive surgery. The purpose of this report is to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who were and were not treated with fusion following decompressive laminectomy for spinal stenosis and to identify whether fusion was beneficial. The authors conclude that patients in whom concomitant fusion procedures were performed fared better than patients who were treated by means of decompression alone when evidence of radiological instability existed preoperatively. Key Words * lumbar spinal stenosis * laminectomy * fusion * indication The decision to perform fusion following decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis has been studied by many authors.[14,16,30,52,69] Unfortunately, no clear consensus has been reached to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from a concomitant lumbar fusion. Patient satisfaction following lumbar decompression alone ranges from 59 to 96%, with early surgical failures resulting from inadequate decompression and preoperative lumbar instability.[2,4,8,12,21,22,26,29,31,34,65] Late recurrence of back or leg problems may also result from acquired spinal instability. The goal of this study was to analyze clinical outcomes in patients treated with and without fusion following lumbar decompression to determine which patients benefited most. The ability to identify predictive factors for successful surgery with fusion would improve overall clinical results and decrease both early and late failures caused by persistent or acquired spinal instability.
    [Show full text]
  • Disc Decompression Procedures Reference Number: CP.MP.114 Effective Date: 07/16 Coding Implications Last Review Date: 07/16 Revision Log
    Clinical Policy: Disc Decompression Procedures Reference Number: CP.MP.114 Effective Date: 07/16 Coding Implications Last Review Date: 07/16 Revision Log See Important Reminder at the end of this policy for important regulatory and legal information. Description Microdiscectomy or open discectomy (MD/OD) are the standard procedures for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation and they involve removal of the portion of the intervertebral disc compressing the nerve root or spinal cord (or both) with or without the aid of a headlight loupe or microscope magnification. Potential advantages of newer minimally invasive discectomy (MID) procedures over standard MD/OD include less blood loss, less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization and earlier return to work. Policy/Criteria I. It is the policy of health plans affiliated with Centene Corporation® that open discectomy and microdiscectomy are medically necessary when meeting all of the following: A. Age ≥ 18; B. Diagnosis of herniated lumbar disc; C. Nerve root compression confirmed by imaging and one of the following: 1. Unilateral radiculopathy with motor deficit and one of the following: a. Severe weakness in a nerve root distribution, as evidenced by: a score of < 2 on the Medical Research Council 0 to 5 muscle strength scale, or the inability to ambulate; b. Mild to moderate weakness in a nerve root distribution, as evidenced by a score of 3 or 4 on the Medical Research Council 0 to 5 muscle strength scale and one of the following: i. Worsening weakness or motor deficit; ii. Patient has failed to respond to conservative therapy including all of the following: a) ≥ 6 weeks physical therapy or prescribed home exercise program; b) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or acetaminophen ≥ 3 weeks unless contraindicated or not tolerated; c) ≥ 6 weeks activity modification; 2.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Nuvasive® Reimbursement Guide
    2018 NuVasive® Reimbursement Guide Assisting physicians and facilities in accurate billing for NuVasive implants and instrumentation systems. 2018 Reimbursement Guide Contents I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................2 II. Physician Coding and Payment ......................................................................................................................................2 Fusion Facilitating Technologies ............................................................................................................................................. 2 NVM5® Intraoperative Monitoring System ........................................................................................................................... 12 III. Hospital Inpatient Coding and Payment ....................................................................................................................13 NuVasive® Technology ..........................................................................................................................................................13 Non-Medicare Reimbursement ............................................................................................................................................13 IV. Outpatient Facility Coding and Payment ..................................................................................................................14 Hospital Outpatient
    [Show full text]
  • Surgical Treatment for Spine Pain
    UnitedHealthcare® Value & Balance Exchange Medical Policy Surgical Treatment for Spine Pain Policy Number: IEXT0547.05 Effective Date: September 1, 2021 Instructions for Use Table of Contents Page Related Policies Applicable States ........................................................................... 1 • Bone or Soft Tissue Healing and Fusion Coverage Rationale ....................................................................... 1 Enhancement Products Definitions ...................................................................................... 2 • Discogenic Pain Treatment Applicable Codes .......................................................................... 5 • Epidural Steroid Injections for Spinal Pain Description of Services ............................................................... 13 • Facet Joint Injections for Spinal Pain Clinical Evidence ......................................................................... 13 U.S. Food and Drug Administration ........................................... 27 • Total Artificial Disc Replacement for the Spine References ................................................................................... 28 • Vertebral Body Tethering for Scoliosis Policy History/Revision Information ........................................... 32 Instructions for Use ..................................................................... 32 Applicable States This Medical Policy only applies to the states of Arizona, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. Coverage
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 – Spine, Spinal Cord and Peripheral Nerves
    Chapter 3 – Spine, spinal cord and peripheral nerves There are many codes covering most clinical situations that require spinal surgery. The codes for spinal decompression and removal of disc fusion and instrumentation should be used singly and not be combined with other codes except in very unusual circumstances which must be agreed with us prior to surgery. Spinal fusion includes bone grafting and this should not be charged as a separate procedure. Spinal decompression includes the removal of disc matter and rhizolysis. Spinal surgery is frequently multi-level surgery. For the purposes of billing, multi-level surgery is not considered a multiple service procedure and will not be reimbursed as such except in the cervical region. Chemonucleolysis includes discography and this should not be charged as a separate procedure. Codes V4100, V4120 and V4000 must only be used where the primary pathology is idiopathic adolescent scoliosis and not for any other purpose (specifically not for the correction of degenerative scoliosis). Last updated: January 2021 FREEDOM ELITE | SCHEDULE OF FEES | CHAPTER 3 | 01/12/2020 www.freedomhealthinsurance.co.uk Freedom Health Insurance is a trading name of Freedom Healthnet Limited. Freedom Healthnet Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority with registration number 312282. Registered address: County Gates House, 300 Poole Road, Poole BH12 1AZ. Company registration number: 04815524. 3.1 Spinal column (including intervertebral discs) 3.1.1 Cervical region CCSD Specialist Anaesthetist
    [Show full text]
  • Decompression Research
    DECOMPRESSION RESEARCH AJPM Vol. 7 No. 2 April 1997 Emerging Technologies: Preliminary Findings DECOMPRESSION, REDUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF THE LUMBAR SPINE: A COST-EFFECTIVE TREATMENT FOR LUMBOSACRAL PAIN C. Norman Shealy, MD, PhD, and Vera Borgmeyer, RN, MA C. Norman Shealy MD, PhD, is Director of The Shealy Institute for Comprehensive Health Care and Clinical Research and Professor Of Psychology at the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology. Vera Borgmeyer is Research Coordinator at the Shealy Institute for Comprehensive Health Care and Clinical Research. Address reprint requests to: Dr. C. Norman Shealy, The Shealy Institute for Comprehensive Health Care and Clinical Research , 1328 East Evergreen Street, Springfield, MO 65803. INTRODUCTION Pain in the lumbosacral spine is the most common of all pain complaints. It causes loss of work and is the single most common cause of disability in persons under 45 years of age (1). Back pain is the most dollar-costly industrial problem (2). Pain clinics originated over 30 years ago, in large part, because of the numbers of chronic back pain patients. Interestingly, despite patients' reporting good results using "upside-down gravity boots," and commenting on how good stretching made them feel, traction as a primary treatment has been overlooked while very expensive and invasive treatments have dominated the management of low back pain. Managed care is now recognizing the lack of sufficient benefit-cost ratio associated with these ineffective treatments to stop the continued need for pain-mitigating services. We felt that by improving the "traction-like" method, pain relief would be achieved quickly and less costly. Although pelvic traction has been used to treat patients with low back pain for hundreds of years, most neurosurgeons and orthopedists have not been enthusiastic about it secondary to concerns over inconsistent results and cumbersome equipment.
    [Show full text]
  • London Choosing Wisely
    London Choosing Wisely Draft Policy Template: Interventional treatments for back pain Version Date Notes Draft for Task & Finish 17/04/18 Initial draft Group 1 Revised version post Task 04/05/18 Criteria for commissioning & Finish Group 1 Rationale for commissioning completed Adherence to NICE guidance completed Governance statement completed Updated ICD-10 and OPCS codes Summary of findings – spinal cord stimulation amended Additional evidence for ozone discectomy and sacroiliac joints reviewed Ozone discectomy specifically added to commissioning criteria Revised version post Task 17/05/18 Commissioning criteria updated & Finish Group 2 Epidural lysis specifically added to commissioning criteria Advice for primary care updated Appendix 2 updated to include LCW policy Revised version following 04/06/18 Epidural lysis commissioning criteria T&F Chair’s final updated. amendments Revised version following 27/06/18 Explanatory text added in several places, in chair’s review of comments response to feedback from “sense check”. from “sense check” Spinal cord stimulation criterion removed (new technology appraisal is expected this autumn). Revised following further 12/07/18 Specific proposed timescale for one chair’s review of feedback intervention revised Revised following LCW 20/08/18 Text added to search strategy section of Steering Group evidence review appendix following discussion at July Steering group meeting Final 18/10/18 Inconsistent wording removed 1 COMMISSIONING STATEMENT Intervention Interventional treatments for back pain Date Issued Dates of Review This policy relates to interventional treatments for back pain only, as described in detail below. For many patients, consideration of such treatments only arises after conservative management in primary care or specialist musculoskeletal services.
    [Show full text]
  • Disc Decompression Procedures Reference Number: PA.CP.MP.114 Effective Date: 01/18 Coding Implications Last Review Date: 10/2019 Revision Log
    Clinical Policy: Disc Decompression Procedures Reference Number: PA.CP.MP.114 Effective Date: 01/18 Coding Implications Last Review Date: 10/2019 Revision Log Description Microdiscectomy or open discectomy (MD/OD) are the standard procedures for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation and they involve removal of the portion of the intervertebral disc compressing the nerve root or spinal cord (or both) with or without the aid of a headlight loupe or microscope magnification. Potential advantages of newer minimally invasive discectomy (MID) procedures over standard MD/OD include less blood loss, less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization and earlier return to work. Policy/Criteria I. It is the policy of Pennsylvania Health and Wellness® (PHW) that open discectomy and microdiscectomy are medically necessary when meeting all of the following: A. Age ≥ 18; B. Diagnosis of herniated lumbar disc; C. Nerve root compression confirmed by imaging and one of the following: 1. Unilateral radiculopathy with motor deficit and one of the following: a. Severe weakness in a nerve root distribution, as evidenced by: a score of < 3 on the Medical Research Council 0 to 5 muscle strength scale, or the inability to ambulate; b. Mild to moderate weakness in a nerve root distribution, as evidenced by a score of 3 or 4 on the Medical Research Council 0 to 5 muscle strength scale and one of the following: i. Worsening weakness or motor deficit; ii. Patient has failed to respond to conservative therapy including all of the following: a) ≥ 6 weeks physical therapy or prescribed home exercise program; b) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or acetaminophen ≥ 3 weeks unless contraindicated or not tolerated; c) ≥ 6 weeks activity modification; 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Dickerman's Curriculum Vitae
    Curriculum Vitae Rob D. Dickerman, D.O., Ph.D. Neurological and Spine Surgeon 6130 West Parker Road Suite 1-502 Plano, TX 75093 Office::972-238-0512 Fax:972-378-6925 DOB 2/29/1968 Education: 1988-1992 B.S. Chemistry, Texas Wesleyan University, Fort Worth, Texas 1992-1998 Ph.D. Biomedical Sciences- Biochemistry/Molecular Biology University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas 1994-1998 D.O. University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas Postgraduate Training: 1992-1994 Medicinal & Laboratory Chemist, Alcon Laboratories 1998-1999 Internship- John Peter Smith/Osteopathic Medical Center of Texas, Fort Worth, Texas 1999-2000 Neurosurgery Fellowship, CNS Tumors, National Institutes of Health, Surgical Neurology Branch 2000-2003 Neurosurgery Resident North Shore University-Long Island Jewish Medical Center 2003-2004 Chief Resident, Neurosurgery North Shore University-Long Island Jewish Medical Center 2004- 2005 Spine Fellowship,Texas Back Institute Continuing Medical Education: Medtronic Advanced Midas Rex Pneumatic Instrumentation AO Advanced Cranial Plastic and Neurosurgical Reconstruction Sofamor Danek- Advanced Spinal Instrumentation-Minimally Invasive Surgery Medtronic Advanced Approaches to the Skull Base Synthesis-Anterior approaches to the lumbar spine Medtronic and Spinal Concepts-Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery Laser Spine Minimally Invasive Surgery Course Honors: Sigma Sigma Phi Honor Society Medical School 1994-1998 UpJohn Research Achievement Award 1996 Competitive Stipend Awarded 1995 &
    [Show full text]
  • The ABC's of Spinal Decompression: Pearls and Technical Notes
    Original Article The ABC’s of Spinal Decompression: Pearls and Technical Notes Wyatt L. Ramey2, Juan Altafulla1,2, Emre Yilmaz1,2, Basem Ishak1,2, Andrew Jack2, Zachary N. Litvack1,2, Rod J. Oskouian1,2, R. Shane Tubbs1,3, Jens R. Chapman2 - OBJECTIVE: The foundation of spine surgery centers on procedures consistently and effectively. Of particular importance the proper identification, decompression, and stabilization in establishing a set of intraoperative pearls is the educational of bony and neural elements. We describe easily repro- domain. Spinal surgery trainees are often burdened with learning ducible and reliable methods for optimal decompression and adapting to various styles of surgery during training and are and release of neural structures to alleviate symptoms and then expected to adopt the approach that works best for them. Whereas there is merit in this philosophy, learning the basics of improve patients’ quality of life. spinal decompression in a safe, reproducible, and efficient fashion - METHODS: Multiple spinal decompression techniques is part of the foundational skill set required of spinal surgeons. were described in procedures for which the goal of surgery Surgeons-in-training commonly focus on the desired surgical was decompression alone or decompression and fusion. endpoint of neural decompression and try to mimic their in- ’ Eight fundamental techniques were described: inverted U- structors prior surgical examples, as opposed to following an objective, systematic, and readily communicable pathway to lead cut, J-cut, T-cut, L-cut, Z-cut, I-track cuts, C-cut, and O-cut. them predictably and safely toward this goal. In other words, - RESULTS: These foundational cuts may be combined, as surgeons may focus on the end rather than the means, which can needed, to develop an individually tailored approach to the lead to inefficient execution of surgical steps, longer operative patient’s pathology.
    [Show full text]
  • Neurosurgery Curriculum 2015
    The Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Educating the surgeons of the future Neurosurgery From 2010 (Updated 2013 and 2015) Page 1 of 196 Approved 3 July 2013, for implementation in August 2013 Contents page Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 The Syllabus .................................................................................................................................. 17 Core Overview ............................................................................................................................... 27 Intermediate Stage Overview ........................................................................................................ 79 Final Stage Overview .................................................................................................................... 93 Professional Behaviour and Leadership ..................................................................................... 130 Assessment System .................................................................................................................... 159 This document is the Neurosurgery curriculum, approved by the GMC in July 2010. It was subsequently updated in 2013 to incorporate simulation, and again in 2015 to include changes to the Core modules and amended text to reflect the adoption of the ISCP by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Page 2 of 196 Approved 3 July 2013, for implementation in August 2013
    [Show full text]