Potential reasons for failure and recurrence in microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm

BACKGROUND

To examine the factors contributing to persistent and recurrent hemifacial spasms (HFS) following a microvascular decompression (MVD) procedure and to suggest technical improvements to prevent such failures.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on fifty-two cases of repeat surgery. The extent of the previous craniotomy and the location of neurovascular compression (NVC) were investigated. The operative findings were categorized into two groups: "Missing Compression" and "Teflon Contact". The analysis included long-term outcomes and operative complications after repeat MVD procedures.

RESULTS

Missing compression was identified in 29 patients (56%), while Teflon contact was observed in 23 patients (44%). Patients with missing compression were more likely to experience improper craniotomy (66%) compared to those with Teflon contact (48%). Medially located NVC was a frequent finding in both groups, mainly due to compression by the anterior inferior cerebellar artery. In the missing compression group, during the repeat MVD, Teflon sling retraction was utilized in 79% of cases, while in the Teflon contact group, the most common procedure involved removing the Teflon in contact (65%). After the repeat MVD procedure, immediate spasm relief was achieved in 42 patients (81%), with six (12%) experiencing delayed relief. After a median follow-up of 54 months, 96% of patients were free from spasms. Delayed facial palsy, facial weakness, and hearing impairment were more frequently observed in the Teflon contact group.

CONCLUSIONS

A proper craniotomy that provides adequate exposure around the REZ is crucial to prevent missing the culprit vessel during the initial MVD procedure. Teflon contact on the REZ should be avoided, as it poses a potential risk of procedure failure and recurrence.

Stereotactic radiosurgery for non-vestibular cranial nerve schwanommas

Non-vestibular cranial nerve schwannomas (NVCNS) are rare lesions, representing <10 % of cranial nerve schwannomas. The optimal treatment for NVCNS is often derived from vestibular schwannomas experience. Surgical resection has been referred to as the first line treatment for those benign tumors, but significant complication rates are reported. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has arisen as a mainstay of treatment for many benign tumors, including schwanommas. We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of NVCNS treated by SRS to characterize tumor control, symptom relief, toxicity, and the role of hypo-fractionation of SRS dose. Eighty-eight (88) patients, with ninety-five (95) NVCNS were treated with either single or multi-session SRS from 2001 to 2014. Local control was achieved in 94 % of patients treated (median follow-up of 33 months, range 1-155). Complications were seen in 7.4 % of cases treated with SRS. At 1-year, 57 % of patients had improvement or resolution of their symptoms, while 35 % were stable and 8 % had worsening or increased symptoms. While 42 % received only one session, results on local control were similar for one or multiple sessions (p = 0.424). SRS for NVCNS is a treatment modality that provides excellent local control with minimal complication risk compared to traditional neurosurgical techniques. Tumor control obtained with a multi-session treatment was not significantly different from single session treatment. Safety profile was also comparable for uni or multi-session treatments. We concluded that, as seen in VS treated with CK SRS, radiosurgery treatment can be safely delivered in cases of NVCNS.

Case-control studies in neurosurgery

OBJECT

Observational studies, such as cohort and case-control studies, are valuable instruments in evidence-based medicine. Case-control studies, in particular, are becoming increasingly popular in the neurosurgical literature due to their low cost and relative ease of execution; however, no one has yet systematically assessed these types of studies for quality in methodology and reporting.

METHODS

The authors performed a literature search using PubMed/MEDLINE to identify all studies that explicitly identified themselves as "case-control" and were published in the JNS Publishing Group journals (Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and Neurosurgical Focus) or Neurosurgery. Each paper was evaluated for 22 descriptive variables and then categorized as having either met or missed the basic definition of a case-control study. All studies that evaluated risk factors for a well-defined outcome were considered true case-control studies. The authors sought to identify key features or phrases that were or were not predictive of a true case-control study. Those papers that satisfied the definition were further evaluated using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist.

RESULTS

The search detected 67 papers that met the inclusion criteria, of which 32 (48%) represented true case-control studies. The frequency of true case-control studies has not changed with time. Use of odds ratios (ORs) and logistic regression (LR) analysis were strong positive predictors of true case-control studies (for odds ratios, OR 15.33 and 95% CI 4.52-51.97; for logistic regression analysis, OR 8.77 and 95% CI 2.69-28.56). Conversely, negative predictors included focus on a procedure/intervention (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13-0.998) and use of the word "outcome" in the Results section (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.082-0.65). After exclusion of nested case-control studies, the negative correlation between focus on a procedure/intervention and true case-control studies was strengthened (OR 0.053, 95% CI 0.0064-0.44). There was a trend toward a negative association between the use of survival analysis or Kaplan-Meier curves and true case-control studies (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.015-1.12). True case-control studies were no more likely than their counterparts to use a potential study design "expert" (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.57-3.95). The overall average STROBE score was 72% (range 50-86%). Examples of reporting deficiencies were reporting of bias (28%), missing data (55%), and funding (44%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this analysis show that the majority of studies in the neurosurgical literature that identify themselves as "case-control" studies are, in fact, labeled incorrectly. Positive and negative predictors were identified. The authors provide several recommendations that may reverse the incorrect and inappropriate use of the term "case-control" and improve the quality of design and reporting of true case-control studies in neurosurgery.

Methodology and reporting of meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature

OBJECT

Neurosurgeons are inundated with vast amounts of new clinical research on a daily basis, making it difficult and time-consuming to keep up with the latest literature. Meta-analysis is an extension of a systematic review that employs statistical techniques to pool the data from the literature in order to calculate a cumulative effect size. This is done to answer a clearly defined a priori question. Despite their increasing popularity in the neurosurgery literature, meta-analyses have not been scrutinized in terms of reporting and methodology.

METHODS

The authors performed a literature search using PubMed/MEDLINE to locate all meta-analyses that have been published in the JNS Publishing Group journals (Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and Neurosurgical Focus) or Neurosurgery. Accepted checklists for reporting (PRISMA) and methodology (AMSTAR) were applied to each meta-analysis, and the number of items within each checklist that were satisfactorily fulfilled was recorded. The authors sought to answer 4 specific questions: Are meta-analyses improving 1) with time; 2) when the study met their definition of a meta-analysis; 3) when clinicians collaborated with a potential expert in meta-analysis; and 4) when the meta-analysis was the only focus of the paper?

RESULTS

Seventy-two meta-analyses were published in the JNS Publishing Group journals and Neurosurgery between 1990 and 2012. The number of published meta-analyses has increased dramatically in the last several years. The most common topics were vascular, and most were based on observational studies. Only 11 papers were prepared using an established checklist. The average AMSTAR and PRISMA scores (proportion of items satisfactorily fulfilled divided by the total number of eligible items in the respective instrument) were 31% and 55%, respectively. Major deficiencies were identified, including the lack of a comprehensive search strategy, study selection and data extraction, assessment of heterogeneity, publication bias, and study quality. Almost one-third of the papers did not meet our basic definition of a meta-analysis. The quality of reporting and methodology was better 1) when the study met our definition of a meta-analysis; 2) when one or more of the authors had experience or expertise in conducting a meta-analysis; 3) when the meta-analysis was not conducted alongside an evaluation of the authors' own data; and 4) in more recent studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting and methodology of meta-analyses in the neurosurgery literature is excessively variable and overall poor. As these papers are being published with increasing frequency, neurosurgical journals need to adopt a clear definition of a meta-analysis and insist that they be created using checklists for both reporting and methodology. Standardization will ensure high-quality publications.