William Edward Gallie (1882–1959) was a Canadian general surgeon with special expertise in orthopedic surgery. His experience with surgical management of cervical spine subluxation led him to invent a method of cervical wiring of the atlas to the axis. His method of C1–2 wiring has since been modified, but it still remains one of the three most commonly taught wiring techniques in neurosurgical training programs. Gallie is also hailed for instituting the first surgical training program in Canada, a curriculum his pupils memorialized as the “Gallie course” in surgery. In this historical vignette, the authors describe Gallie’s life and depict his contributions to surgery.
Rimal Hanif Dossani, John Shaughnessy, Piyush Kalakoti and Anil Nanda
Devi Prasad Patra, Amey Rajan Savardekar, Rimal Hanif Dossani, Vinayak Narayan, Nasser Mohammed and Anil Nanda
Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) has emerged as a promising treatment modality for patients with classical trigeminal neuralgia (TN); however, considering that almost half of the patients experience post-GKRS failure or lesion recurrence, a repeat treatment is typically necessary. The existing literature does not offer clear evidence to establish which treatment modality, repeat GKRS or microvascular decompression (MVD), is superior. The present study aimed to compare the overall outcome of patients who have undergone either repeat GKRS or MVD after failure of their primary GKRS; the authors do so by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature and analysis of data from their own institution.
The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases to identify studies describing patients who underwent either repeat GKRS or MVD after initial failed GKRS for TN. The primary outcomes were complete pain relief (CPR) and adequate pain relief (APR) at 1 year. The secondary outcomes were rate of postoperative facial numbness and the retreatment rate. The pooled data were analyzed with R software. Bias and heterogeneity were assessed using funnel plots and I2 tests, respectively. A retrospective analysis of a series of patients treated by the authors who underwent repeat GKRS or MVD after post-GKRS failure or relapse is presented.
A total of 22 studies met the selection criteria and were included for final data retrieval and meta-analysis. The search did not identify any study that had directly compared outcomes between patients who had undergone repeat GKRS versus those who had undergone MVD. Therefore, the authors’ final analysis included two groups: studies describing outcome after repeat GKRS (n = 17) and studies describing outcome after MVD (n = 5). The authors’ institutional study was the only study with direct comparison of the two cohorts. The pooled estimates of primary outcomes were APR in 83% of patients who underwent repeat GKRS and 88% of those who underwent MVD (p = 0.49), and CPR in 46% of patients who underwent repeat GKRS and 72% of those who underwent MVD (p = 0.02). The pooled estimates of secondary outcomes were facial numbness in 32% of patients who underwent repeat GKRS and 22% of those who underwent MVD (p = 0.11); the retreatment rate was 19% in patients who underwent repeat GKRS and 13% in those who underwent MVD (p = 0.74). The authors’ institutional study included 42 patients (repeat GKRS in 15 and MVD in 27), and the outcomes 1 year after retreatment were APR in 80% of those who underwent repeat GKRS and 81% in those who underwent MVD (p = 1.0); CPR was achieved in 47% of those who underwent repeat GKRS and 44% in those who underwent MVD (p = 1.0). There was no difference in the rate of postoperative facial numbness or retreatment.
The current meta-analysis failed to identify any superiority of one treatment over the other with comparable outcomes in terms of APR, postoperative facial numbness, and retreatment rates. However, MVD was shown to provide a better chance of CPR compared with repeat GKRS.
Nasser Mohammed, Devi Prasad Patra, Vinayak Narayan, Amey R. Savardekar, Rimal Hanif Dossani, Papireddy Bollam, Shyamal Bir and Anil Nanda
Spondylosis with or without spondylolisthesis that does not respond to conservative management has an excellent outcome with direct pars interarticularis repair. Direct repair preserves the segmental spinal motion. A number of operative techniques for direct repair are practiced; however, the procedure of choice is not clearly defined. The present study aims to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of the different operative techniques and their outcomes.
A meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature). Studies of patients with spondylolysis with or without low-grade spondylolisthesis who underwent direct repair were included. The patients were divided into 4 groups based on the operative technique used: the Buck repair group, Scott repair group, Morscher repair group, and pedicle screw–based repair group. The pooled data were analyzed using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Tests for bias and heterogeneity were performed. The I2 statistic was calculated, and the results were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using StatsDirect version 2.
Forty-six studies consisting of 900 patients were included in the study. The majority of the patients were in their 2nd decade of life. The Buck group included 19 studies with 305 patients; the Scott group had 8 studies with 162 patients. The Morscher method included 5 studies with 193 patients, and the pedicle group included 14 studies with 240 patients. The overall pooled fusion, complication, and outcome rates were calculated. The pooled rates for fusion for the Buck, Scott, Morscher, and pedicle screw groups were 83.53%, 81.57%, 77.72%, and 90.21%, respectively. The pooled complication rates for the Buck, Scott, Morscher, and pedicle screw groups were 13.41%, 22.35%, 27.42%, and 12.8%, respectively, and the pooled positive outcome rates for the Buck, Scott, Morscher, and pedicle screw groups were 84.33%, 82.49%, 80.30%, and 80.1%, respectively. The pedicle group had the best fusion rate and lowest complication rate.
The pedicle screw–based direct pars repair for spondylolysis and low-grade spondylolisthesis is the best choice of procedure, with the highest fusion and lowest complication rates, followed by the Buck repair. The Morscher and Scott repairs were associated with a high rate of complication and lower rates of fusion.