Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author or Editor: Alina Mohanty x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Free access

Alina Mohanty, Visish M. Srinivasan, Jan-Karl Burkhardt, Jeremiah Johnson, Akash J. Patel, Sameer A. Sheth, Ashwin Viswanathan, Daniel Yoshor, and Peter Kan

OBJECTIVE

Telemedicine has rapidly expanded in the recent years as technologies have afforded healthcare practitioners the ability to diagnose and treat patients remotely. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, nonessential clinical visits were greatly limited, and much of the outpatient neurosurgical practice at the authors’ institution was shifted quickly to telehealth. Although there are prior data suggesting that the use of telemedicine is satisfactory in other surgical fields, data in neurosurgery are limited. This study aimed to investigate both patient and provider satisfaction with telemedicine and its strengths and limitations in outpatient neurosurgery visits.

METHODS

This quality improvement study was designed to analyze provider and patient satisfaction with telemedicine consultations in an outpatient neurosurgery clinic setting at a tertiary care, large-volume, academic center. The authors designed an 11-question survey for neurosurgical providers and a 13-question survey for patients using both closed 5-point Likert scale responses and multiple choice responses. The questionnaires were administered to patients and providers during the period when the clinic restricted in-person visits. At the conclusion of the study, the overall data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively.

RESULTS

During the study period, 607 surveys were sent out to patients seen by telehealth at the authors’ academic center, and 122 responses were received. For the provider survey, 85 surveys were sent out to providers at the authors’ center and other academic centers, and 40 surveys were received. Ninety-two percent of patients agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with that particular telehealth visit. Eighty-eight percent of patients agreed that their telehealth visit was more convenient for them than an in-person visit, but only 36% of patients stated they would like their future visits to be telehealth. Sixty-three percent of providers agreed that telehealth visits were more convenient for them than in-person visits, and 85% of responding providers stated that they wished to incorporate telehealth into their future practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the authors’ transition to telehealth was both rapid and unexpected, most providers and patients reported positive experiences with their telemedicine visits and found telemedicine to be an effective form of ambulatory neurosurgical care. Not all patients preferred telemedicine visits over in-person visits, but the high satisfaction with telemedicine by both providers and patients is promising to the future expansion of telehealth in ambulatory neurosurgery.

Restricted access

Kathryn Wagner, Aditya Srivatsan, Alina Mohanty, Visish M. Srinivasan, Yasir Saleem, Jacob Cherian, Robert F. James, Stephen Chen, Jan-Karl Burkhardt, Jeremiah Johnson, and Peter Kan

OBJECTIVE

Flow diversion is increasingly used to treat a variety of intracranial aneurysms with good safety and efficacy; however, there is some evidence that this treatment is associated with a larger postoperative ischemic burden on imaging than that with other traditional endovascular modalities. These findings typically do not manifest as neurological deficits, but any subtle effects on cognition remain unknown. In this study, the authors describe the neurocognitive performance of a cohort of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) before and after treatment with flow diversion. This is the first report of cognitive outcomes following aneurysm treatment with flow diversion.

METHODS

The authors prospectively collected data on cognitive function using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) tool in patients with UIAs who were undergoing endovascular aneurysm treatment with flow diversion between June 2017 and July 2019. Patients completed the MoCA prior to intervention, at the 1-month follow-up after treatment, and again at 6 months after the procedure. All patients with UIAs treated with flow diversion were included regardless of age, aneurysm location, or morphology, unless their functional status precluded completion of the MoCA instrument. A repeated-measures linear mixed-effects model was used to compare preintervention and postintervention cognitive status at the time intervals outlined.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients with 61 aneurysms underwent endovascular aneurysm treatment with flow diversion (mean age 52.5 years, 90.2% females). There was no difference between baseline and postprocedure MoCA scores at any time interval (p > 0.05). The MoCA scores at baseline, 1 month postprocedure, and 6 months postprocedure were 26.1, 26.2, and 26.6, respectively. There was also no difference between pre- and postprocedure scores on any individual domain of the instrument (visuospatial, naming, attention, language, abstraction, delayed recall, and orientation) at any time interval (p > 0.05). Thirty-four patients had follow-up MRI or CT imaging, 5 of whom showed radiographic changes or ischemia. All patients with follow-up clinical evaluation had a 6-month modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Flow diversion is increasingly used in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. This study suggests that this treatment may not alter neurocognitive function. Larger patient samples and longer follow-ups with other tests of cognitive functions are needed to confirm these findings.

Free access

Kathryn Wagner, Aditya Srivatsan, Alina Mohanty, Visish M. Srinivasan, Yasir Saleem, Jacob Cherian, Robert F. James, Stephen Chen, Jan-Karl Burkhardt, Jeremiah Johnson, and Peter Kan

OBJECTIVE

Flow diversion is increasingly used to treat a variety of intracranial aneurysms with good safety and efficacy; however, there is some evidence that this treatment is associated with a larger postoperative ischemic burden on imaging than that with other traditional endovascular modalities. These findings typically do not manifest as neurological deficits, but any subtle effects on cognition remain unknown. In this study, the authors describe the neurocognitive performance of a cohort of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) before and after treatment with flow diversion. This is the first report of cognitive outcomes following aneurysm treatment with flow diversion.

METHODS

The authors prospectively collected data on cognitive function using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) tool in patients with UIAs who were undergoing endovascular aneurysm treatment with flow diversion between June 2017 and July 2019. Patients completed the MoCA prior to intervention, at the 1-month follow-up after treatment, and again at 6 months after the procedure. All patients with UIAs treated with flow diversion were included regardless of age, aneurysm location, or morphology, unless their functional status precluded completion of the MoCA instrument. A repeated-measures linear mixed-effects model was used to compare preintervention and postintervention cognitive status at the time intervals outlined.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients with 61 aneurysms underwent endovascular aneurysm treatment with flow diversion (mean age 52.5 years, 90.2% females). There was no difference between baseline and postprocedure MoCA scores at any time interval (p > 0.05). The MoCA scores at baseline, 1 month postprocedure, and 6 months postprocedure were 26.1, 26.2, and 26.6, respectively. There was also no difference between pre- and postprocedure scores on any individual domain of the instrument (visuospatial, naming, attention, language, abstraction, delayed recall, and orientation) at any time interval (p > 0.05). Thirty-four patients had follow-up MRI or CT imaging, 5 of whom showed radiographic changes or ischemia. All patients with follow-up clinical evaluation had a 6-month modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Flow diversion is increasingly used in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. This study suggests that this treatment may not alter neurocognitive function. Larger patient samples and longer follow-ups with other tests of cognitive functions are needed to confirm these findings.