Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 28 items for

  • Author or Editor: Paul K. Kim x
  • Refine by Access: all x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Paul L. Penar, Jung Kim, Douglas Chyatte, and James K. Sabshin

✓ Infection by Cryptococcus neoformans, a budding nonmycelial yeast, involves the central nervous system in 70% of patients at the time of diagnosis. Meningitis and meningoencephalitis are common manifestations of infection; solid granulomas occur but are unusual, and intraventricular granulomas are distinctly rare. Two cases of intraventricular cryptococcal granuloma are reported. The diagnosis and treatment of mass lesions due to cryptococcal infection are discussed, with special reference to intraventricular granulomas.

Full access

Paul Khoueir, K. Anthony Kim, and Michael Y. Wang

✓Numerous new posterior dynamic stabilization (PDS) devices have been developed for the treatment of disorders of the lumbar spine. In this report the authors provide a classification scheme for these devices and describe several clinical situations in which the instrumentation may be expected to play a role. By using this classification, the PDSs that are now available and those developed in the future can be uniformly categorized.

Restricted access

Domagoj Coric, Paul K. Kim, Jonathan D. Clemente, Margaret O. Boltes, Marcy Nussbaum, and Sara James

Object

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term results of cervical total disc replacement (TDR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of single-level cervical radiculopathy.

Methods

The results of 2 separate prospective, randomized, US FDA Investigational Device Exemption pivotal trials (Bryan Disc and Kineflex|C) from a single investigational site were combined to evaluate outcomes at long-term follow-up. The primary clinical outcome measures included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale (VAS), and neurological examination. Patients were randomized to receive cervical TDR in 2 separate prospective, randomized studies using the Bryan Disc or Kineflex|C cervical artificial disc compared with ACDF using structural allograft and an anterior plate. Patients were evaluated preoperatively; at 6 weeks; at 3, 6, and 12 months; and then yearly for a minimum of 48 months. Plain radiographs were obtained at each study visit.

Results

A total of 74 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the cervical TDR (n = 41) or ACDF (n = 33) group. A total of 63 patients (86%) completed a minimum of 4 years follow-up. Average follow-up was 6 years (72 months) with a range from 48 to 108 months. In both the cervical TDR and ACDF groups, mean NDI scores improved significantly by 6 weeks after surgery and remained significantly improved throughout the minimum 48-month follow-up (p < 0.001). Similarly, the median VAS pain scores improved significantly by 6 weeks and remained significantly improved throughout the minimum 48-month follow-up (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups in mean NDI or median VAS scores. The range of motion (ROM) in the cervical TDR group remained significantly greater than the preoperative mean, whereas the ROM in the ACDF group was significantly reduced from the preoperative mean. There was significantly greater ROM in the cervical TDR group compared with the ACDF group. There were 3 reoperations (7.3%) at index or adjacent levels in the cervical TDR group; all were cervical laminoforaminotomies. There were 2 adjacent-level reoperations in the cervical TDR group (4.9%). There was 1 reoperation (3.0%) in the ACDF group at an index or adjacent level (a second ACDF at the adjacent level). There was no statistically significant difference in overall reoperation rate or adjacent-level reoperation rate between groups.

Conclusions

Both cervical TDR and ACDF groups showed excellent clinical outcomes that were maintained over long-term follow-up. Both groups showed low index-level and adjacent-level reoperation rates. Both cervical TDR and ACDF appear to be viable options for the treatment of single-level cervical radiculopathy.

Full access

K. Anthony Kim, Matthew McDonald, Justin H. T. Pik, Paul Khoueir, and Michael Y. Wang

Object

To assess the safety and efficacy of the DIAM implant, the authors compared the mean 12-month outcomes in patients who underwent lumbar surgery with DIAM placement and in those who underwent lumbar surgery only.

Methods

Of 62 patients who underwent simple lumbar surgery (laminectomy and/or microdiscectomy) in a 24-month period, 31 underwent concomitant surgical placement of a DIAM interspinous process spacer (33 devices total). Radiographic imaging, pain scores, and clinical assessments were obtained postoperatively to a mean of 12 months (range 8–25 months). Patients who did not undergo implantation of an interspinous process spacer (Group C) were compared with and stratified against patients who underwent placement of a DIAM implant (Group D).

In Group D, no statistically significant differences were noted in anterior or posterior disc height when comparing patients pre- and postoperatively. Compared with Group C, a relative kyphosis of less than 2° was noted on postoperative images obtained in Group D. No statistically significant differences in visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores or MacNab outcomes were noted between Groups C and D at a mean of 12 months of follow up. Complications in Group D included three intraoperative spinous process fractures and one infection.

Conclusions

After simple lumbar surgery, the placement of a DIAM interspinous process spacer did not alter disc height or sagittal alignment at the mean 12-month follow-up interval. No adverse local or systemic reaction to the DIAM was noted. No difference in VAS or MacNab outcome scores was noted between the groups treated with or without the DIAM implants, particularly when the DIAM was used to alleviate low-back pain.

Restricted access

Xiaoping Hu, Kim K. Tan, David N. Levin, Simranjit Galhotra, John F. Mullan, Javad Hekmatpanah, and Jean-Paul Spire

✓ Data from single 10-minute magnetic resonance scans were used to create three-dimensional (3-D) views of the surfaces of the brain and skin of 12 patients. In each case, these views were used to make a preoperative assessment of the relationship of lesions to brain surface structures associated with movement, sensation, hearing, and speech. Interactive software was written so that the user could “slice” through the 3-D computer model and inspect cross-sectional images at any level. A surgery simulation program was written so that surgeons were able to “rehearse” craniotomies on 3-D computer models before performing the actual operations. In each case, the qualitative accuracy of the 3-D views was confirmed by intraoperative inspection of the brain surface and by intraoperative electrophysiological mapping, when available.

Full access

Kevin Diao, Shelly X. Bian, David M. Routman, Cheng Yu, Paul E. Kim, Naveed A. Wagle, Michael K. Wong, Gabriel Zada, and Eric L. Chang

OBJECTIVE

Tumor and edema volume changes of brain metastases after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and ipilimumab are not well described, and there is concern regarding the safety of combination treatment. The authors evaluated tumor, edema, and adverse radiation-induced changes after SRS with and without ipilimumab and identified associated risk factors.

METHODS

This single-institution retrospective study included 72 patients with melanoma brain metastases treated consecutively with upfront SRS from 2006 to 2015. Concurrent ipilimumab was defined as ipilimumab treatment within 4 weeks of SRS. At baseline and during each follow-up, tumor and edema were measured in 3 orthogonal planes. The (length × width × height/2) formula was used to estimate tumor and edema volumes and was validated in the present study for estimation of edema volume. Tumor and edema volume changes from baseline were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Local failure, lesion hemorrhage, and treatment-related imaging changes (TRICs) were analyzed with the Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Of 310 analyzed lesions, 91 were not treated with ipilimumab, 59 were treated with concurrent ipilimumab, and 160 were treated with nonconcurrent ipilimumab. Of 106 randomly selected lesions with measurable peritumoral edema, the mean edema volume by manual contouring was 7.45 cm3 and the mean volume by (length × width × height)/2 formula estimation was 7.79 cm3 with R2 = 0.99 and slope of 1.08 on line of best fit. At 6 months after SRS, the ipilimumab groups had greater tumor (p = 0.001) and edema (p = 0.005) volume reduction than the control group. The concurrent ipilimumab group had the highest rate of lesion response and lowest rate of lesion progression (p = 0.002). Within the concurrent ipilimumab group, SRS dose ≥ 20 Gy was associated with significantly greater median tumor volume reduction at 3 months (p = 0.01) and 6 months (p = 0.02). The concurrent ipilimumab group also had the highest rate of lesion hemorrhage (p = 0.01). Any ipilimumab was associated with higher incidence of symptomatic TRICs (p = 0.005). The overall incidence of pathologically confirmed radiation necrosis (RN) was 2%. In multivariate analysis, tumor and edema response at 3 months were the strongest predictors of local failure (HR 0.131 and HR 0.125) and lesion hemorrhage (HR 0.225 and HR 0.262). Tumor and edema response at 1.5 months were the strongest predictors of TRICs (HR 0.144 and HR 0.297).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of ipilimumab improved tumor and edema volume reduction but was associated with a higher incidence of lesion hemorrhage and symptomatic TRICs. There may be a radiation dose-response relationship between SRS and ipilimumab when administered concurrently. Early tumor and edema response were excellent predictors of subsequent local failure, lesion hemorrhage, and TRICs. The incidence of pathologically proven RN was low, supporting the relative safety of ipilimumab in radiosurgery treatment.

Restricted access

Paul K. Kim, Thomas L. Ellis, Volker W. Stieber, Kevin P. McMullen, Edward G. Shaw, Thomas P. McCoy, Ralph B. D'Agostino, J. Daniel Bourland, Allan F. deGuzman, Kenneth E. Ekstrand, Michael R. Raber, and Stephen B. Tatter

Object

Salvage treatment of large, symptomatic brain metastases after failure of whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) remains challenging. When these lesions require resection, there are few options to lower expected rates of local recurrence at the resection cavity margin. The authors describe their experience in using Gamma Knife surgery (GKS) to target the resection cavity in patients whose tumors had progressed after WBRT.

Methods

The authors retrospectively identified 143 patients in whom GKS had been used to target a brain metastasis resection cavity between 2000 and 2005. Seventy-nine of these patients had undergone WBRT prior to resection and GKS. The median patient age was 53 years, and the median prescribed dose was 18 Gy (range 8–24 Gy), with resection cavities of relatively larger volume (> 15 cm3). The GKS dose was prescribed at the 40 to 95% isodose contour (mode 50%).

Local recurrence within 1 cm of the treatment volume occurred in four (5.1%) of 79 cases. The median duration of time to local recurrence was 6.1 months (range 2–13 months). The median duration of time to occurrence of distant metastases following GKS of the resection cavity was 10.8 months (range 2–86 months). Carcinomatous meningitis developed in four (5.1%) of 79 cases. Symptomatic radionecrosis requiring surgical treatment occurred in three (3.8%) of 79 cases. The median duration of survival following GKS of the resection cavity was 69.6 weeks. The median 2- and 5-year survival rates were 20.2 and 6.3%, respectively.

Conclusions

When metastases progress after WBRT and require resection, GKS targeting the resection cavity is a viable strategy. In 75 (94.9%) of 79 cases, GKS of the resection cavity in patients in whom WBRT had failed appears to have achieved its goal of local disease control.

Restricted access

Domagoj Coric, Ahmad Nassr, Paul K. Kim, William C. Welch, Stephen Robbins, Steven DeLuca, Donald Whiting, Ali Chahlavi, Stephen M. Pirris, Michael W. Groff, John H. Chi, Jason H. Huang, Roland Kent, Robert G. Whitmore, Scott A. Meyer, Paul M. Arnold, Ashvin I. Patel, R. Douglas Orr, Ajit Krishnaney, Peggy Boltes, Yoram Anekstein, and Michael P. Steinmetz

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a posterior facet replacement device, the Total Posterior Spine (TOPS) System, for the treatment of one-level symptomatic lumbar stenosis with grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. Posterior lumbar arthroplasty with facet replacement is a motion-preserving alternative to lumbar decompression and fusion. The authors report the preliminary results from the TOPS FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) trial.

METHODS

The study was a prospective, randomized controlled FDA IDE trial comparing the investigational TOPS device with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and pedicle screw fixation. The minimum follow-up duration was 24 months. Validated patient-reported outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. The primary outcome was a composite measure of clinical success: 1) no reoperations, 2) no device breakage, 3) ODI reduction of ≥ 15 points, and 4) no new or worsening neurological deficit. Patients were considered a clinical success only if they met all four measures. Radiographic assessments were made by an independent core laboratory.

RESULTS

A total of 249 patients were evaluated (n = 170 in the TOPS group and n = 79 in the TLIF group). There were no statistically significant differences between implanted levels (L4–5: TOPS, 95% and TLIF, 95%) or blood loss. The overall composite measure for clinical success was statistically significantly higher in the TOPS group (85%) compared with the TLIF group (64%) (p = 0.0138). The percentage of patients reporting a minimum 15-point improvement in ODI showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.037) favoring TOPS (93%) over TLIF (81%). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in the percentage of patients reporting a minimum 20-point improvement on VAS back pain (TOPS, 87%; TLIF, 64%) and leg pain (TOPS, 90%; TLIF, 88%) scores. The rate of surgical reintervention for facet replacement in the TOPS group (5.9%) was lower than the TLIF group (8.8%). The TOPS cohort demonstrated maintenance of flexion/extension range of motion from preoperatively (3.85°) to 24 months (3.86°).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that posterior lumbar decompression and dynamic stabilization with the TOPS device is safe and efficacious in the treatment of lumbar stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Additionally, decompression and dynamic stabilization with the TOPS device maintains segmental motion.

Free access

Dean Chou, Virginie Lafage, Alvin Y. Chan, Peter Passias, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Robert K. Eastlack, Kai-Ming Fu, Richard G. Fessler, Munish C. Gupta, Khoi D. Than, Neel Anand, Juan S. Uribe, Adam S. Kanter, David O. Okonkwo, Shay Bess, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Han Jo Kim, Justin S. Smith, Daniel M. Sciubba, Paul Park, Praveen V. Mummaneni, and

OBJECTIVE

Circumferential minimally invasive spine surgery (cMIS) for adult scoliosis has become more advanced and powerful, but direct comparison with traditional open correction using prospectively collected data is limited. The authors performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected, multicenter adult spinal deformity data. The authors directly compared cMIS for adult scoliosis with open correction in propensity-matched cohorts using health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures and surgical parameters.

METHODS

Data from a prospective, multicenter adult spinal deformity database were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were age > 18 years, minimum 1-year follow-up, and one of the following characteristics: pelvic tilt (PT) > 25°, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) > 10°, Cobb angle > 20°, or sagittal vertical axis (SVA) > 5 cm. Patients were categorized as undergoing cMIS (percutaneous screws with minimally invasive anterior interbody fusion) or open correction (traditional open deformity correction). Propensity matching was used to create two equal groups and to control for age, BMI, preoperative PI-LL, pelvic incidence (PI), T1 pelvic angle (T1PA), SVA, PT, and number of posterior levels fused.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients (77 underwent open procedures and 77 underwent cMIS) were included after matching for age, BMI, PI-LL (mean 15° vs 17°, respectively), PI (54° vs 54°), T1PA (21° vs 22°), and mean number of levels fused (6.3 vs 6). Patients who underwent three-column osteotomy were excluded. Follow-up was 1 year for all patients. Postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (p = 0.50), Scoliosis Research Society–total (p = 0.45), and EQ-5D (p = 0.33) scores were not different between cMIS and open patients. Maximum Cobb angles were similar for open and cMIS patients at baseline (25.9° vs 26.3°, p = 0.85) and at 1 year postoperation (15.0° vs 17.5°, p = 0.17). In total, 58.3% of open patients and 64.4% of cMIS patients (p = 0.31) reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI at 1 year. At 1 year, no differences were observed in terms of PI-LL (p = 0.71), SVA (p = 0.46), PT (p = 0.9), or Cobb angle (p = 0.20). Open patients had greater estimated blood loss compared with cMIS patients (1.36 L vs 0.524 L, p < 0.05) and fewer levels of interbody fusion (1.87 vs 3.46, p < 0.05), but shorter operative times (356 minutes vs 452 minutes, p = 0.003). Revision surgery rates between the two cohorts were similar (p = 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

When cMIS was compared with open adult scoliosis correction with propensity matching, HRQOL improvement, spinopelvic parameters, revision surgery rates, and proportions of patients who reached MCID were similar between cohorts. However, well-selected cMIS patients had less blood loss, comparable results, and longer operative times in comparison with open patients.

Free access

Dean Chou, Virginie Lafage, Alvin Y. Chan, Peter Passias, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Robert K. Eastlack, Kai-Ming Fu, Richard G. Fessler, Munish C. Gupta, Khoi D. Than, Neel Anand, Juan S. Uribe, Adam S. Kanter, David O. Okonkwo, Shay Bess, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Han Jo Kim, Justin S. Smith, Daniel M. Sciubba, Paul Park, Praveen V. Mummaneni, and the International Spine Study Group (ISSG)

OBJECTIVE

Circumferential minimally invasive spine surgery (cMIS) for adult scoliosis has become more advanced and powerful, but direct comparison with traditional open correction using prospectively collected data is limited. The authors performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected, multicenter adult spinal deformity data. The authors directly compared cMIS for adult scoliosis with open correction in propensity-matched cohorts using health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures and surgical parameters.

METHODS

Data from a prospective, multicenter adult spinal deformity database were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were age > 18 years, minimum 1-year follow-up, and one of the following characteristics: pelvic tilt (PT) > 25°, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) > 10°, Cobb angle > 20°, or sagittal vertical axis (SVA) > 5 cm. Patients were categorized as undergoing cMIS (percutaneous screws with minimally invasive anterior interbody fusion) or open correction (traditional open deformity correction). Propensity matching was used to create two equal groups and to control for age, BMI, preoperative PI-LL, pelvic incidence (PI), T1 pelvic angle (T1PA), SVA, PT, and number of posterior levels fused.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients (77 underwent open procedures and 77 underwent cMIS) were included after matching for age, BMI, PI-LL (mean 15° vs 17°, respectively), PI (54° vs 54°), T1PA (21° vs 22°), and mean number of levels fused (6.3 vs 6). Patients who underwent three-column osteotomy were excluded. Follow-up was 1 year for all patients. Postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (p = 0.50), Scoliosis Research Society–total (p = 0.45), and EQ-5D (p = 0.33) scores were not different between cMIS and open patients. Maximum Cobb angles were similar for open and cMIS patients at baseline (25.9° vs 26.3°, p = 0.85) and at 1 year postoperation (15.0° vs 17.5°, p = 0.17). In total, 58.3% of open patients and 64.4% of cMIS patients (p = 0.31) reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI at 1 year. At 1 year, no differences were observed in terms of PI-LL (p = 0.71), SVA (p = 0.46), PT (p = 0.9), or Cobb angle (p = 0.20). Open patients had greater estimated blood loss compared with cMIS patients (1.36 L vs 0.524 L, p < 0.05) and fewer levels of interbody fusion (1.87 vs 3.46, p < 0.05), but shorter operative times (356 minutes vs 452 minutes, p = 0.003). Revision surgery rates between the two cohorts were similar (p = 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

When cMIS was compared with open adult scoliosis correction with propensity matching, HRQOL improvement, spinopelvic parameters, revision surgery rates, and proportions of patients who reached MCID were similar between cohorts. However, well-selected cMIS patients had less blood loss, comparable results, and longer operative times in comparison with open patients.