Filter

Refine by Publication

Refine by Date

—

Refine by Access

By Author

  • Print
  • Save

Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 212 items for

  • Author or Editor: Praveen V. Mummaneni x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Introduction: Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery video supplement

Praveen V. Mummaneni

This video supplement of Neurosurgery Focus is devoted to minimally invasive spine surgery. Minimally invasive spine surgery has gained popularity amongst patients and physicians over the past decade because it has been shown in select instances to lower blood loss and reduce length of hospital stay for appropriately selected candidates.

This supplement includes videos from many of the leaders in the field. Pioneers like Frank LaMarca, Paul Park, Cheerag Upadhyaya, Juan Uribe, and Mike Wang have all sent in videos depicting minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery options. The supplement also includes videos from several different countries, demonstrating how widespread and nuanced minimally invasive spinal procedures have become. Drs. Barbagallo, Certo, Sciacca, and Albanese from Italy; Drs. Gragnaniello and Seex from Australia; and Drs. Liao, Wu, Huang, Wang, Chang, Cheng, and Shih from Taiwan have all sent in nuanced surgical videos that will be of interest to many viewers.

I personally enjoyed viewing videos on lumbar degenerative disease surgery depicting unique surgical nuances to treat common problems. Dr. Beejal Amin, Dr. Harel Deutsch, Dr. Daniel Lu, and Dr. Adam Kanter have each submitted videos depicting lumbar decompression and/or fusion for lumbar degenerative stenosis and spondylosis.

This supplement also included videos depicting the minimally invasive treatment of uncommon spinal pathologies as well. Videos from Dr. Fred Geisler, Dr. John O'Toole, and Dr. Noel Perin covered topics as varied as sacroiliac joint dysfunction, spinal arteriovenous malformations, and sympathetic chain surgery.

I hope that you enjoy this issue of Neurosurgical Focus devoted to videos depicting the surgical nuances of minimally invasive spinal surgery. This video supplement has international appeal, and it has been an honor to be a guest editor on this superb supplement.

In Neurosurgical Focus Volume 35 (2013): Issue v2supplement (Jul 2013): Video Atlas - Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Free access

Two-level corpectomy versus three-level discectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a comparison of perioperative, radiographic, and clinical outcomes

Darryl Lau, Dean Chou, and Praveen V. Mummaneni

OBJECT

In the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) are effective decompressive techniques. It remains to be determined whether ACCF and ACDF offer equivalent outcomes for multilevel CSM. In this study, the authors compared perioperative, radiographic, and clinical outcomes between 2-level ACCF and 3-level ACDF.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2012, all patients at the authors' hospital who underwent 2-level ACCF or 3-level ACDF performed by 1 of 2 surgeons were identified. Primary outcomes of interest were sagittal Cobb angle, adjacent-segment disease (ASD) requiring surgery, neck pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS), and Nurick score. Secondary outcomes of interest included estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, perioperative complications, and radiographic pseudarthrosis rate. Chi-square tests and 2-tailed Student t-tests were used to compare the 2 groups. A subgroup analysis of patients without posterior spinal fusion (PSF) was also performed.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent 2-level ACCF, and 35 patients underwent 3-level ACDF during a 6-year period. Preoperative Nurick scores were higher in the ACCF group (2.1 vs 1.1, p = 0.014), and more patients underwent PSF in the 2-level ACCF group compared with patients in the 3-level ACDF group (60.0% vs 17.1%, p = 0.001). Otherwise there were no significant differences in demographics, comorbidities, and baseline clinical parameters between the 2 groups. Two-level ACCF was associated with significantly higher EBL compared with 3-level ACDF for the anterior stage of surgery (382.2 ml vs 117.9 ml, p < 0.001). Two-level ACCF was also associated with a longer hospital stay compared with 3-level ACDF (7.2 days vs 4.9 days, p = 0.048), but a subgroup comparison of patients without PSF showed no significant difference in length of stay (3.1 days vs 4.4 days for 2-level ACCF vs 3-level ACDF, respectively; p = 0.267). Similarly, there was a trend toward more complications in the 2-level ACCF group (20.0%) than the 3-level ACDF group (5.7%; p = 0.102), but a subgroup analysis that excluded those who had second-stage PSF no longer showed the same trend (2-level ACCF, 0.0% vs 3-level ACDF, 3.4%; p = 0.594). There were no significant differences between the ACCF group and the ACDF group in terms of postoperative sagittal Cobb angle (7.2° vs 12.1°, p = 0.173), operative ASD (6.3% vs 3.6%, p = 0.682), and radiographic pseudarthrosis rate (6.3% vs 7.1%, p = 0.909). Both groups had similar improvement in mean VAS neck pain scores (3.4 vs 3.2 for ACCF vs ACDF, respectively; p = 0.860) and Nurick scores (0.8 vs 0.7, p = 0.925).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-level ACCF was associated with greater EBL and longer hospital stays when patients underwent a second-stage PSF. However, the length of stay was similar when patients underwent anterior-only decompression with either 2-level ACCF or 3-level ACDF. Furthermore, perioperative complication rates were similar in the 2 groups when patients underwent anterior decompression without PSF. Both groups obtained similar postoperative cervical lordosis, operative ASD rates, radiographic pseudarthrosis rates, neurological improvement, and pain relief.

In Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Volume 23 (2015): Issue 3 (Sep 2015)

Full access

Minimally invasive spine surgery

Adam S. Kanter and Praveen V. Mummaneni

In Neurosurgical Focus Volume 25 (2008): Issue 2 (Aug 2008): Contemporary Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Restricted access

The future in the care of the cervical spine: interbody fusion and arthroplasty

Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004

Praveen V. Mummaneni and Regis W. Haid

✓ In the past 50 years tremendous advances have been made in the treatment of cervical disc disease with cervical fusion. Fusion rates have surpassed 95% after application of anterior cervical implants. Adjacent-segment degeneration, however, has plagued the long-term clinical success of cervical fusion.

Cervical arthroplasty has been introduced to maintain cervical motion and potentially avoid or minimize adjacent-segment degeneration. If cervical arthroplasty is successful, the long-term results of surgery for cervical disc disease may improve; however, there are associated drawbacks that must be overcome. Implant wear, fatigue, and failure have been reported in cases of large-joint arthroplasty, and research is underway to limit these problems in cervical arthroplasty.

In this article the authors trace the evolution of cervical fusion and the new technique of cervical arthroplasty. The nomenclature of cervical arthroplasty will also be introduced.

In Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Volume 1: Issue 2 (Sep 2004)

Free access

Editorial. Nuances of restoration of lumbar lordosis using an MIS anterior column release versus posterior 3-column osteotomy

Michael S. Virk and Praveen V. Mummaneni

In Neurosurgical Focus Volume 43: Issue 2 (Aug 2017): Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery

Restricted access

Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion

Edward C. Benzel

In Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Volume 6 (2007): Issue 3 (Mar 2007)

Full access

The future in the care of the cervical spine: interbody fusion and arthroplasty

Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004

Praveen V. Mummaneni and Regis W. Haid

✓ In the past 50 years tremendous advances have been made in the treatment of cervical disc disease with cervical fusion. Fusion rates have surpassed 95% after application of anterior cervical implants. Adjacent-segment degeneration, however, has plagued the long-term clinical success of cervical fusion.

Cervical arthroplasty has been introduced to maintain cervical motion and potentially avoid or minimize adjacent-segment degeneration. If cervical arthroplasty is successful, the long-term results of surgery for cervical disc disease may improve; however, there are associated drawbacks that must be overcome. Implant wear, fatigue, and failure have been reported in cases of large-joint arthroplasty, and research is underway to limit these problems in cervical arthroplasty.

In this article the authors trace the evolution of cervical fusion and the new technique of cervical arthroplasty. The nomenclature of cervical arthroplasty will also be introduced.

In Neurosurgical Focus Volume 17: Issue 3 (Sep 2004): Cervical Arthroplasty

Restricted access

Disc arthroplasty

Ricardo V. Botelho

In Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Volume 12 (2010): Issue 5 (May 2010)

Free access

Introduction. Minimally invasive spine surgery

Erica F. Bisson, Deshpande V. Rajakumar, and Praveen V. Mummaneni

In Neurosurgical Focus Volume 43: Issue 2 (Aug 2017): Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery

Free access

Comparison of minimally invasive transspinous and open approaches for thoracolumbar intradural-extramedullary spinal tumors

Kunal P. Raygor, Khoi D. Than, Dean Chou, and Praveen V. Mummaneni

OBJECT

Spinal tumor resection has historically been performed via open approaches, although minimally invasive approaches have recently been found to be effective in small cohort series. The authors compare surgical characteristics and clinical outcomes of surgery in patients undergoing mini-open and open approaches for intradural-extramedullary tumor resection.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed 65 consecutive intradural-extramedullary tumor resections performed at their institution from 2007 to 2014. Patients with cervical tumors or pathology demonstrating neurofibroma were excluded (n = 14). The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test and Pearson chi-square test were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, with significance set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Fifty-one thoracolumbar intradural-extramedullary tumor resections were included; 25 were performed via the minimally invasive transspinous approach. There were no statistically significant differences in age, sex, body mass index, preoperative American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) score, preoperative symptom duration, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status class, tumor size, or tumor location. There was no statistically significant difference between groups with respect to the duration of the operation or extent of resection, but the mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) cohort (142 vs 320 ml, p < 0.05). In each group, the 2 most common tumor pathologies were schwannoma and meningioma. There were no statistically significant differences in length of hospitalization, ASIA score improvement, complication rate, or recurrence rate. The mean duration of follow-up was 2 years for the MIS group and 1.6 years for the open surgery group.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the largest comparisons of minimally invasive and open approaches to the resection of thoracolumbar intradural-extramedullary tumors. With well-matched cohorts, the minimally invasive transspinous approach appears to be as safe and effective as the open technique, with the advantage of significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss.

In Neurosurgical Focus Volume 39 (2015): Issue 2 (Aug 2015): Intradural Spinal Tumors