Cargando…
Ultrasonic aspiration in neurosurgery: comparative analysis of complications and outcome for three commonly used models
INTRODUCTION: Ultrasonic aspiration (UA) devices are commonly used for resecting intracranial tumors, as they allow for internal debulking of large tumors, hereby avoiding damage to adjacent brain tissue during the dissection. Little is known about their comparative safety profiles. METHODS AND MATE...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Vienna
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6739453/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31377957 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-019-04021-0 |
_version_ | 1783450948153114624 |
---|---|
author | Henzi, Stephanie Krayenbühl, Niklaus Bozinov, Oliver Regli, Luca Stienen, Martin N. |
author_facet | Henzi, Stephanie Krayenbühl, Niklaus Bozinov, Oliver Regli, Luca Stienen, Martin N. |
author_sort | Henzi, Stephanie |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Ultrasonic aspiration (UA) devices are commonly used for resecting intracranial tumors, as they allow for internal debulking of large tumors, hereby avoiding damage to adjacent brain tissue during the dissection. Little is known about their comparative safety profiles. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We analyzed data from a prospective patient registry. Procedures using one of the following UA models were included: Integra® CUSA, Söring®, and Stryker® Sonopet. The primary endpoint was morbidity at discharge, defined as significant worsening on the Karnofsky Performance Scale. Secondary endpoints included morbidity and mortality until 3 months postoperative (M3), occurrence, type, and etiology of complications. RESULTS: Of n = 1028 procedures, the CUSA was used in n = 354 (34.4 %), the Söring in n = 461 (44.8 %), and the Sonopet in n = 213 (20.7 %). There was some heterogeneity of study groups. In multivariable analysis, patients in the Söring (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.29; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.80–2.08; p = 0.299), and Sonopet group (aOR, 0.86; 95 % CI, 0.46–1.61; p = 0.645) were as likely as patients in the CUSA group to experience discharge morbidity. At M3, patients in the Söring (aOR, 1.20; 95 % CI, 0.78–1.86; p = 0.415) and Sonopet group (aOR, 0.53; 95 % CI, 0.26–1.08; p = 0.080) were as likely as patients in the CUSA group to experience morbidity. There were also no differences for M3 morbidity in subgroup analyses for gliomas, meningiomas, and metastases. The grade (p = 0.608) and etiology (p = 0.849) of postoperative complications were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Neurosurgeons select UA types with regard to certain case-specific characteristics. The safety profiles of three commonly used UA types appear mostly similar. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00701-019-04021-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6739453 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Springer Vienna |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67394532019-09-25 Ultrasonic aspiration in neurosurgery: comparative analysis of complications and outcome for three commonly used models Henzi, Stephanie Krayenbühl, Niklaus Bozinov, Oliver Regli, Luca Stienen, Martin N. Acta Neurochir (Wien) Original Article - Neurosurgical technique evaluation INTRODUCTION: Ultrasonic aspiration (UA) devices are commonly used for resecting intracranial tumors, as they allow for internal debulking of large tumors, hereby avoiding damage to adjacent brain tissue during the dissection. Little is known about their comparative safety profiles. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We analyzed data from a prospective patient registry. Procedures using one of the following UA models were included: Integra® CUSA, Söring®, and Stryker® Sonopet. The primary endpoint was morbidity at discharge, defined as significant worsening on the Karnofsky Performance Scale. Secondary endpoints included morbidity and mortality until 3 months postoperative (M3), occurrence, type, and etiology of complications. RESULTS: Of n = 1028 procedures, the CUSA was used in n = 354 (34.4 %), the Söring in n = 461 (44.8 %), and the Sonopet in n = 213 (20.7 %). There was some heterogeneity of study groups. In multivariable analysis, patients in the Söring (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.29; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.80–2.08; p = 0.299), and Sonopet group (aOR, 0.86; 95 % CI, 0.46–1.61; p = 0.645) were as likely as patients in the CUSA group to experience discharge morbidity. At M3, patients in the Söring (aOR, 1.20; 95 % CI, 0.78–1.86; p = 0.415) and Sonopet group (aOR, 0.53; 95 % CI, 0.26–1.08; p = 0.080) were as likely as patients in the CUSA group to experience morbidity. There were also no differences for M3 morbidity in subgroup analyses for gliomas, meningiomas, and metastases. The grade (p = 0.608) and etiology (p = 0.849) of postoperative complications were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Neurosurgeons select UA types with regard to certain case-specific characteristics. The safety profiles of three commonly used UA types appear mostly similar. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00701-019-04021-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Vienna 2019-08-03 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6739453/ /pubmed/31377957 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-019-04021-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Article - Neurosurgical technique evaluation Henzi, Stephanie Krayenbühl, Niklaus Bozinov, Oliver Regli, Luca Stienen, Martin N. Ultrasonic aspiration in neurosurgery: comparative analysis of complications and outcome for three commonly used models |
title | Ultrasonic aspiration in neurosurgery: comparative analysis of complications and outcome for three commonly used models |
title_full | Ultrasonic aspiration in neurosurgery: comparative analysis of complications and outcome for three commonly used models |
title_fullStr | Ultrasonic aspiration in neurosurgery: comparative analysis of complications and outcome for three commonly used models |
title_full_unstemmed | Ultrasonic aspiration in neurosurgery: comparative analysis of complications and outcome for three commonly used models |
title_short | Ultrasonic aspiration in neurosurgery: comparative analysis of complications and outcome for three commonly used models |
title_sort | ultrasonic aspiration in neurosurgery: comparative analysis of complications and outcome for three commonly used models |
topic | Original Article - Neurosurgical technique evaluation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6739453/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31377957 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-019-04021-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT henzistephanie ultrasonicaspirationinneurosurgerycomparativeanalysisofcomplicationsandoutcomeforthreecommonlyusedmodels AT krayenbuhlniklaus ultrasonicaspirationinneurosurgerycomparativeanalysisofcomplicationsandoutcomeforthreecommonlyusedmodels AT bozinovoliver ultrasonicaspirationinneurosurgerycomparativeanalysisofcomplicationsandoutcomeforthreecommonlyusedmodels AT regliluca ultrasonicaspirationinneurosurgerycomparativeanalysisofcomplicationsandoutcomeforthreecommonlyusedmodels AT stienenmartinn ultrasonicaspirationinneurosurgerycomparativeanalysisofcomplicationsandoutcomeforthreecommonlyusedmodels |