Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 8 of 8 items for

  • Author or Editor: Ashish Patel x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Ashish H. Shah, Neal Patel, Daniel M. S. Raper, Amade Bregy, Ramsey Ashour, Mohamed Samy Elhammady, Mohammad Ali Aziz-Sultan, Jacques J. Morcos, Roberto C. Heros and Ricardo J. Komotar

Object

As endovascular techniques have become more advanced, preoperative embolization has become an increasingly used intervention in the management of meningiomas. To date, however, no consensus has been reached on the use of this technique. To clarify the role of preoperative embolization in the management of meningiomas, the authors conducted a systematic review of case reports, case series, and prospective studies to increase the current understanding of the management options for these common lesions and complications associated with preoperative embolization.

Methods

A PubMed search was performed to include all relevant studies in which the management of intracranial meningiomas with preoperative embolization was reported. Immediate complications of embolization were reported as major (sustained) or minor (transient) deficits, death, or no neurological deficits.

Results

A total of 36 studies comprising 459 patients were included in the review. Among patients receiving preoperative embolization for meningiomas, 4.6% (n = 21) sustained complications as a direct result of embolization. Of the 21 patients with embolization-induced complications, the incidence of major complications was 4.8% (n = 1) and the mortality rate was 9.5% (n = 2).

Conclusions

Preoperative embolization is associated with an added risk for morbidity and mortality. Preoperative embolization may be associated with significant complications, but careful selection of ideal cases for embolization may help reduce any added morbidity with this procedure. Although not analyzed in the authors' study, embolization may still reduce rates of surgical morbidity and mortality and therefore may still have a potential benefit for selected patients. Future prospective studies involving the use of preoperative embolization in certain cases of meningiomas may further elucidate its potential benefit and risks.

Restricted access

Frank J. Schwab, Ashish Patel, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Justin S. Smith, Jean-Pierre Farcy, Oheneba Boachie-Adjei, Richard A. Hostin, Robert A. Hart, Behrooz A. Akbarnia, Douglas C. Burton, Shay Bess and Virginie Lafage

Object

Pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) is a surgical procedure that is frequently performed on patients with sagittal spinopelvic malalignment. Although it allows for substantial spinopelvic realignment, suboptimal realignment outcomes have been reported in up to 33% of patients. The authors' objective in the present study was to identify differences in radiographic profiles and surgical procedures between patients achieving successful versus failed spinopelvic realignment following PSO.

Methods

This study is a multicenter retrospective consecutive PSO case series. The authors evaluated 99 cases involving patients who underwent PSO for sagittal spinopelvic malalignment. Because precise cutoffs of acceptable residual postoperative sagittal vertical axis (SVA) values have not been well defined, comparisons were focused between patient groups with a postoperative SVA that could be clearly considered either a success or a failure. Only cases in which the patients had a postoperative SVA of less than 50 mm (successful PSO realignment) or more than 100 mm (failed PSO realignment) were included in the analysis. Radiographic measures and PSO parameters were compared between successful and failed PSO realignments.

Results

Seventy-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. Successful realignment was achieved in 61 patients (77%), while realignment failed in 18 (23%). Patients with failed realignment had larger preoperative SVA (mean 217.9 vs 106.7 mm, p < 0.01), larger pelvic tilt (mean 36.9° vs 30.7°, p < 0.01), larger pelvic incidence (mean 64.2° vs 53.7°, p < 0.01), and greater lumbar lordosis–pelvic incidence mismatch (−47.1° vs −30.9°, p < 0.01) compared with those in whom realignment was successful. Failed and successful realignments were similar regarding the vertebral level of the PSO, the median size of wedge resection 22.0° (interquartile range 16.5°−28.5°), and the numerical changes in pre- and postoperative spinopelvic parameters (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Patients with failed PSO realignments had significantly larger preoperative spinopelvic deformity than patients in whom realignment was successful. Despite their apparent need for greater correction, the patients in the failed realignment group only received the same amount of correction as those in the successfully realigned patients. A single-level standard PSO may not achieve optimal outcome in patients with high preoperative spinopelvic sagittal malalignment. Patients with large spinopelvic deformities should receive larger osteotomies or additional corrective procedures beyond PSOs to avoid undercorrection.