Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Lohit Velagapudi x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Omaditya Khanna, Lohit Velagapudi, Somnath Das, Ahmad Sweid, Nikolaos Mouchtouris, Fadi Al Saiegh, Michael B. Avery, Nohra Chalouhi, Richard F. Schmidt, Kalyan Sajja, M. Reid Gooch, Stavropoula Tjoumakaris, Robert H. Rosenwasser, and Pascal M. Jabbour

OBJECTIVE

In this study, the authors aimed to investigate procedural and clinical outcomes between radial and femoral artery access in patients undergoing thrombectomy for acute stroke.

METHODS

The authors conducted a single-institution retrospective analysis of 104 patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy, 52 via transradial access and 52 via traditional transfemoral access. They analyzed various procedural and clinical metrics between the two patient cohorts.

RESULTS

There was no difference between patient demographics or presenting symptoms of stroke severity between patients treated via transradial or transfemoral access. The mean procedural time was similar between the two treatment cohorts: 60.35 ± 36.81 minutes for the transradial group versus 65.50 ± 29.92 minutes for the transfemoral group (p = 0.451). The mean total fluoroscopy time for the procedure was similar between the two patient cohorts (20.31 ± 11.68 for radial vs 18.49 ± 11.78 minutes for femoral, p = 0.898). The majority of patients underwent thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score 2b/3 revascularization, regardless of access site (92.3% for radial vs 94.2% for femoral, p = 0.696). There was no significant difference in the incidence of access site or periprocedural complications between the transradial and transfemoral cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute stroke intervention performed via transradial access is feasible and effective, with no significant difference in procedural and clinical outcomes compared with traditional transfemoral access. Larger studies are required to further validate the efficacy and limitations of transradial access for neurointerventional procedures.

Restricted access

Kevin Hines, Zachary T. Wilt, Daniel Franco, Aria Mahtabfar, Nicholas Elmer, Glenn A. Gonzalez, Thiago S. Montenegro, Lohit Velagapudi, Parthik D. Patel, Maxwell Detweiler, Umma Fatema, Gregory D. Schroeder, and James Harrop

OBJECTIVE

Posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) is a commonly performed procedure to address cervical myelopathy. A significant number of these patients require revision surgery for adjacent-segment disease (ASD) or pseudarthrosis. Currently, there is no consensus among spine surgeons on the inclusion of proximal thoracic spine instrumentation. This study investigates the benefits of thoracic extension in long-segment cervical fusions and the potential drawbacks. The authors compare outcomes in long-segment subaxial cervical fusion for degenerative cervical myelopathy with caudal vertebral levels of C6, C7, and T1.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis identified 369 patients who underwent PCDF. Patients were grouped by caudal fusion level. Reoperation rates for ASD and pseudarthrosis, infection, and blood loss were examined. Data were analyzed with chi-square, 1-way ANOVA, and logistic regression.

RESULTS

The total reoperation rate for symptomatic pseudarthrosis or ASD was 4.8%. Reoperation rates, although not significant, were lower in the C3–6 group (2.6%, vs 8.3% for C3–7 and 3.8% for C3–T1; p = 0.129). Similarly, rates of infection were lower in the shorter-segment fusion without achieving statistical significance (2.6% for C3–6, vs 5.6% for C3–7 and 5.5% for C3–T1; p = 0.573). The mean blood loss was documented as 104, 125, and 224 mL for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the lack of statistical difference in reoperation rates for long-segment cervical fusions ending at C6, C7, or T1, shorter fusions in high-risk surgical candidates or elderly patients may be performed without higher rates of reoperation.