The treatment of glomus jugulare tumors presents the surgeon with a significant management problem. Because the neoplasm originates in the region of the jugular bulb, it frequently involves the lower cranial nerves, with occasional extension into the posterior fossa. Despite extensive work on the development of surgical and radiation treatment strategies, considerable controversy still exists regarding the optimal management of these lesions. A historical review of the development of management options for glomus jugulare tumors is presented in an effort to offer a foundation for understanding their contemporary treatment.
L. Madison Michael II and Jon H. Robertson
Nickalus R. Khan, Zachary Smalley, Cody L. Nesvick, Siang Liao Lee and L. Madison Michael II
Paraplegia and paraparesis following aortic aneurysm repair occur at a substantially high rate and are often catastrophic to patients, their families, and the overall health care system. Spinal cord injury (SCI) following open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair is reported to be as high as 20% in historical controls. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of CSF drainage (CSFD) on SCI following TAAA repair.
In August 2015 a systematic literature search was performed using clinicaltrials.gov, the Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Scopus that identified 3478 articles. Of these articles, 10 met inclusion criteria. Random and fixed-effect meta-analyses were performed using both pooled and subset analyses based on study type.
The meta-analysis demonstrated that CSFD decreased SCI by nearly half (relative risk 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.25–0.70; p = 0.0009) in the pooled analysis. This effect remained in the subgroup analysis of early SCI but did not remain significant in late SCI.
This meta-analysis showed that CSFD could be an effective strategy in preventing SCI following aortic aneurysm repair. Care should be taken to prevent complications related to overdrainage. No firm conclusions can be drawn about the newer endovascular procedures at the current time.
William E. Gordon, William M. Mangham, L. Madison Michael II and Paul Klimo Jr.
The cost of training neurosurgical residents is especially high considering the duration of training and the technical nature of the specialty. Despite these costs, on-call residents are a source of significant economic value, through both indirectly and directly supervised activities. The authors sought to identify the economic value of on-call services provided by neurosurgical residents.
A personal call log kept by a single junior neurosurgical resident over a 2-year period was used to obtain the total number of consultations, admissions, and procedures. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were used to estimate the resident’s on-call economic value.
A single on-call neurosurgical resident at the authors’ institution produced 8172 work relative value units (wRVUs) over the study period from indirectly and directly supervised activities. Indirectly supervised procedures produced 7052 wRVUs, and directly supervised activities using the CPT modifier 80 yielded an additional 1120 wRVUs. Using the assistant surgeon billing rate for directly supervised activities and the Medical Group Management Association nationwide median neurosurgery reimbursement rate, the on-call activities of a single resident generated a theoretical billing value of $689,514 over the 2-year period, or $344,757 annually. As a program, the on-call residents collectively produced 39,550 wRVUs over the study period, or 19,775 wRVUs annually, which equates to potential reimbursements of $1,668,386 annually.
Neurosurgery residents at the authors’ institution theoretically produce enough economic value exclusively from on-call activities to far exceed the cost of their education. This information could be used to more precisely estimate the true overall cost of neurosurgical training and determine future graduate medical education funding.
Kyle A. Smith and Morgan B. Glusman
Randy S. Bell and Chris J. Neal
Kiarash Shahlaie and Griffith R. Harsh IV
Joseph H. McAbee, Brian T. Ragel, Shirley McCartney, G. Morgan Jones, L. Madison Michael II, Michael DeCuypere, Joseph S. Cheng, Frederick A. Boop and Paul Klimo Jr.
The object of this study was to identify and quantify predictors of burnout and career satisfaction among US neurosurgeons.
All US members (3247) of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) were invited to participate in a survey between September and December 2012. Responses were evaluated through univariate analysis. Factors independently associated with burnout and career satisfaction were determined using multivariable logistic regression. Subgroup analysis of academic and nonacademic neurosurgeons was performed as well.
The survey response rate was 24% (783 members). The majority of respondents were male, 40–60 years old, in a stable relationship, with children, working in a group or university practice, and trained in a subspecialty. More than 80% of respondents reported being at least somewhat satisfied with their career, and 70% would choose a career in neurosurgery again; however, only 26% of neurosurgeons believed their professional lives would improve in the future, and 52% believed it would worsen. The overall burnout rate was 56.7%. Factors independently associated with both burnout and career satisfaction included achieving a balance between work and life outside the hospital (burnout OR 0.45, satisfaction OR 10.0) and anxiety over future earnings and/or health care reform (burnout OR 1.96, satisfaction OR 0.32). While the burnout rate for nonacademic neurosurgeons (62.9%) was higher than that for academic neurosurgeons (47.7%), academicians who had practiced for over 20 years were less likely to be satisfied with their careers.
The rates of burnout and career satisfaction were both high in this survey study of US neurosurgeons. The negative effects of burnout on the lives of surgeons, patients, and their families require further study and probably necessitate the development of interventional programs at local, regional, and even national levels.
Nickalus R. Khan, Clinton J. Thompson, Douglas R. Taylor, Garrett T. Venable, R. Matthew Wham, L. Madison Michael II and Paul Klimo Jr.
Bibliometrics is defined as the study of statistical and mathematical methods used to quantitatively analyze scientific literature. The application of bibliometrics in neurosurgery is in its infancy. The authors calculate a number of publication productivity measures for almost all academic neurosurgeons and departments within the US.
The h-index, g-index, m-quotient, and contemporary h-index (hc-index) were calculated for 1225 academic neurosurgeons in 99 (of 101) programs listed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in January 2013. Three currently available citation databases were used: Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Bibliometric profiles were created for each surgeon. Comparisons based on academic rank (that is, chairperson, professor, associate, assistant, and instructor), sex, and subspecialties were performed. Departments were ranked based on the summation of individual faculty h-indices. Calculations were carried out from January to February 2013.
The median h-index, g-index, hc-index, and m-quotient were 11, 20, 8, and 0.62, respectively. All indices demonstrated a positive relationship with increasing academic rank (p < 0.001). The median h-index was 11 for males (n = 1144) and 8 for females (n = 81). The h-index, g-index and hc-index significantly varied by sex (p < 0.001). However, when corrected for academic rank, this difference was no longer significant. There was no difference in the m-quotient by sex. Neurosurgeons with subspecialties in functional/epilepsy, peripheral nerve, radiosurgery, neuro-oncology/skull base, and vascular have the highest median h-indices; general, pediatric, and spine neurosurgeons have the lowest median h-indices. By summing the manually calculated Scopus h-indices of all individuals within a department, the top 5 programs for publication productivity are University of California, San Francisco; Barrow Neurological Institute; Johns Hopkins University; University of Pittsburgh; and University of California, Los Angeles.
This study represents the most detailed publication analysis of academic neurosurgeons and their programs to date. The results for the metrics presented should be viewed as benchmarks for comparison purposes. It is our hope that organized neurosurgery will adopt and continue to refine bibliometric profiling of individuals and departments.