Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author or Editor: Giorgos D. Michalopoulos x
  • Refine by Access: all x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Archis R. Bhandarkar, Ryan Jarrah, Yagiz Ugur Yolcu, Mohammed Ali Alvi, Abdul Karim Ghaith, Arjun S. Sebastian, Brett A. Freedman, and Mohamad Bydon

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid surgery (HS) is the combination of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) at different levels in the same operation. The aim of this study was to investigate perioperative variables, 30-day postoperative outcomes, and complications of HS in comparison with those of CDA and ACDF.

METHODS

The authors queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) registry for patients who underwent multilevel primary HS, CDA, and ACDF for degenerative disc disease from 2015 to 2019. The authors compared these three operations in terms of 30-day postoperative outcomes, specifically readmission and reoperation rates, discharge destination, and complications.

RESULTS

This analysis included 439 patients who underwent HS, 976 patients who underwent CDA, and 27,460 patients who underwent ACDF. Patients in the HS and CDA groups were younger, had fewer comorbidities, and myelopathy was less often the indication for surgery compared with patients who underwent ACDF. For the HS group, the unplanned readmission rate was 0.7%, index surgery–related reoperation rate was 0.3%, and nonroutine discharge rate was 2.1%. Major and minor complications were also rare, with rates of 0.2% for each. The mean length of stay in the HS group was 1.5 days. The association of HS with better outcomes in univariate analysis was not evident after adjustment for confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found that HS was noninferior to ACDF and CDA in terms of early postoperative outcomes among patients treated for degenerative disc disease.

Restricted access

Anthony L. Asher, Sally El Sammak, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Yagiz U. Yolcu, A. Yohan Alexander, John J. Knightly, Kevin T. Foley, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Robert E. Harbaugh, Geoffrey A. Rose, Domagoj Coric, Erica F. Bisson, Steven D. Glassman, Praveen V. Mummaneni, and Mohamad Bydon

Restricted access

Mohammed Ali Alvi, Anthony L. Asher, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Inga S. Grills, Ronald E. Warnick, James McInerney, Veronica L. Chiang, Albert Attia, Robert Timmerman, Eric Chang, Brian D. Kavanagh, David W. Andrews, Kevin Walter, Mohamad Bydon, and Jason P. Sheehan

OBJECTIVE

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been increasingly employed in recent years to treat intracranial metastatic lesions. However, there is still a need for optimization of treatment paradigms to provide better local control and prevent progressive intracranial disease. In the current study, the authors utilized a national collaborative registry to investigate the outcomes of patients with intracranial metastatic disease who underwent SRS and to determine factors associated with lesion treatment response, overall progression, and mortality.

METHODS

The NeuroPoint Alliance SRS registry was queried for all patients with intracranial metastatic lesions undergoing single- or multifraction SRS at participating institutions between 2016 and 2020. The main outcomes of interest included lesion response (lesion-level analysis), progression using Response Assessment for Neuro-Oncology criteria, and mortality (patient-level analysis). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to report time to progression and overall survival, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to investigate factors associated with lesion response, progression, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 501 patients (1447 intracranial metastatic lesions) who underwent SRS and had available follow-up were included in the current analyses. The most common primary tumor was lung cancer (49.5%, n = 248), followed by breast (15.4%, n = 77) and melanoma (12.2%, n = 61). Most patients had a single lesion (44.9%, n = 225), 29.3% (n = 147) had 2 or 3 lesions, and 25.7% (n = 129) had > 3 lesions. The mean sum of baseline measurements of the lesions according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was 35.54 mm (SD 25.94). At follow-up, 671 lesions (46.4%) had a complete response, 631 (43.6%) had a partial response (≥ 30% decrease in longest diameter) or were stable (< 30% decrease but < 20% increase), and 145 (10%) showed progression (> 20% increase in longest diameter). On multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, melanoma-associated lesions (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34–0.67; p < 0.001) and larger lesion size (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.93–0.96; p < 0.001) showed lower odds of lesion regression, while a higher biologically effective dose was associated with higher odds (HR 1.001, 95% CI 1.0001–1.00023; p < 0.001). A total of 237 patients (47.3%) had overall progression (local failure or intracranial progressive disease), with a median time to progression of 10.03 months after the index SRS. Factors found to be associated with increased hazards of progression included male sex (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.108–1.99; p = 0.008), while administration of immunotherapy (before or after SRS) was found to be associated with lower hazards of overall progression (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.460–0.85; p = 0.003). A total of 121 patients (23.95%) died during the follow-up period, with a median survival of 19.4 months from the time of initial SRS. A higher recursive partitioning analysis score (HR 21.3485, 95% CI 1.53202–3.6285; p < 0.001) was found to be associated with higher hazards of mortality, while single-fraction treatment compared with hypofractionated treatment (HR 0.082, 95% CI 0.011–0.61; p = 0.015), administration of immunotherapy (HR 0.385, 95% CI 0.233–0.64; p < 0.001), and presence of single compared with > 3 lesions (HR 0.427, 95% CI 0.187–0.98; p = 0.044) were found to be associated with lower risk of mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparability of results between this study and those of previously published clinical trials affirms the value of multicenter databases with real-world data collected without predetermined research purpose.

Free access

James Mooney, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Mohammed Ali Alvi, Daniel Zeitouni, Andrew K. Chan, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Erica F. Bisson, Brandon A. Sherrod, Regis W. Haid, John J. Knightly, Clinton J. Devin, Brenton Pennicooke, Anthony L. Asher, and Mohamad Bydon

OBJECTIVE

With the expanding indications for and increasing popularity of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar spinal fusion, large-scale outcomes analysis to compare MIS approaches with open procedures is warranted.

METHODS

The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients who underwent elective lumbar fusion for degenerative spine disease. They performed optimal matching, at a 1:2 ratio between patients who underwent MIS and those who underwent open lumbar fusion, to create two highly homogeneous groups in terms of 33 baseline variables (including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, indications, and operative details). The outcomes of interest were overall satisfaction, decrease in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and back and leg pain, as well as hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, reoperations, and incidental durotomy rate. Satisfaction was defined as a score of 1 or 2 on the North American Spine Society scale. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI was defined as ≥ 30% decrease from baseline. Outcomes were assessed at the 3- and 12-month follow-up evaluations.

RESULTS

After the groups were matched, the MIS and open groups consisted of 1483 and 2966 patients, respectively. Patients who underwent MIS fusion had higher odds of satisfaction at 3 months (OR 1.4, p = 0.004); no difference was demonstrated at 12 months (OR 1.04, p = 0.67). Lumbar stenosis, single-level fusion, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System grade, and absence of spondylolisthesis were most prominently associated with higher odds of satisfaction with MIS compared with open surgery. Patients in the MIS group had slightly lower ODI scores at 3 months (mean difference 1.61, p = 0.006; MCID OR 1.14, p = 0.0495) and 12 months (mean difference 2.35, p < 0.001; MCID OR 1.29, p < 0.001). MIS was also associated with a greater decrease in leg and back pain at both follow-up time points. The two groups did not differ in operative time and incidental durotomy rate; however, LOS was shorter for the MIS group. Revision surgery at 12 months was less likely for patients who underwent MIS (4.1% vs 5.6%, p = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who underwent lumbar fusion for degenerative spinal disease, MIS was associated with higher odds of satisfaction at 3 months postoperatively. No difference was demonstrated at the 12-month follow-up. MIS maintained a small, yet consistent, superiority in decreasing ODI and back and leg pain, and MIS was associated with a lower reoperation rate.