RESUMEN
Objectives Neoplasms involving the pineal gland are rare. When they do occur, tumor resection is anatomically challenging and is traditionally addressed by either a supratentorial or an infratentorial approach. To date, no large, multicenter studies have been performed that systematically analyze outcomes comparing these two approaches. This study aimed to evaluate outcomes for patients undergoing pineal neoplasm resection, comparing supratentorial and infratentorial approaches. Design Retrospective database review. Setting Multi-institutional database. Participants From 2005 to 2016, 60 patients were identified, with 13 undergoing a supratentorial approach and 47 undergoing an infratentorial approach. Main Outcome Measures Patient demographics, comorbidities, and 30-day postoperative outcomes were investigated using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Demographics, readmission, reoperation, and complication rates were analyzed and compared with previous studies. Results Patient demographics were similar between these two groups. The overall complication rates for the supratentorial and infratentorial approaches were 30.8 and 17%, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant. The most common medical complications encountered were respiratory and hematological. Conclusion As the first multi-institutional database analysis of approaches to the pineal gland, this study provides an analysis of patient demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications. After controlling for preoperative risk factors and demographic characteristics, no statistically significant differences in postoperative outcomes were found between infratentorial and supratentorial approaches. The mean readmission, reoperation, and complication rates were found to be 2.1, 8.3, and 20%, respectively. The lack of significant difference between approaches suggests that clinical decision-making should depend upon anatomical considerations and physician preference, although the complications illustrated here may provide some preoperative guidance.
RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Observational analysis of retrospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: A retrospective study was performed in order to compare the surgical profile of risk factors and perioperative complications for laminectomy and laminectomy with fusion procedures in the treatment of spinal epidural abscess (SEA). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SEA is a highly morbid condition typically presenting with back pain, fever, and neurologic deficits. Posterior fusion has been used to supplement traditional laminectomy of SEA to improve spinal stability. At present, the ideal surgical strategy-laminectomy with or without fusion-remains elusive. METHODS: Thirty-day outcomes such as reoperation and readmission following laminectomy and laminectomy with fusion in patients with SEA were investigated utilizing the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program database. Demographics and clinical risk factors were collected, and propensity matching was performed to account for differences in risk profiles between the groups. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-eight patients were studied (608 laminectomy alone, 130 fusion). The fusion population was in worse health. The fusion population experienced significantly greater rate of return to the operating room (odds ratio [OR] 1.892), with the difference primarily accounted for by cervical spine operations. Additionally, fusion patients had significantly greater rates of blood transfusion. Infection was the most common reason for reoperation in both populations. CONCLUSION: Both laminectomy and laminectomy with fusion effectively treat SEA, but addition of fusion is associated with significantly higher rates of transfusion and perioperative return to the operating room. In operative situations where either procedure is reasonable, surgeons should consider that fusion nearly doubles the odds of reoperation in the short-term, and weigh this risk against the benefit of added stability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.