Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Intracranial hypotension typically occurs spontaneously. Acquired or secondary intracranial hypotension is less common but has been reported after spinal procedures, such as lumbar puncture. Cranial nerve (CN) III palsy is a rare sequela of intracranial hypotension. There are currently no established or standard interventions to treat intracranial hypotension. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To describe a case of delayed CN III palsy resulting from intracranial hypotension because of a spinal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak occurring during resection of a paraspinous tumor. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Case report. METHODS:A 41-year-old woman underwent resection of a large thoracic schwannoma complicated by dural tear. Postoperatively, the patient was neurologically normal. She subsequently became acutely unresponsive and required reintubation. She awakened with intermittent headaches and was noted to have a right ptosis, which progressed to a complete right CN III palsy. RESULTS:Initial head computed tomography showed evidence of a small, right-sided subdural hematoma. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain showed diffuse leptomeningeal enhancement and crowding of the foramen magnum consistent with intracranial hypotension. The patient's symptoms were treated successfully with flat bed rest. She fully recovered by time of discharge and at 6-month follow-up was neurologically normal. CONCLUSIONS:Spinal surgery complicated by CSF leak is a potential cause of intracranial hypotension. Although most commonly associated with positional headaches, intracranial hypotension can cause uncommon symptoms, including acute mental status changes and CN deficits. Symptoms highly suspicious for intracranial hypotension accompanied by MRI of the brain are important for establishing a diagnosis of intracranial hypotension. Conservative treatment should be considered before attempting invasive intervention. As in the case presented, simple bed rest was a successful treatment option.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Systematic review using a modified network analysis. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To compare the effectiveness and morbidity of interspinous-device placement versus surgical decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:Traditionally, the most effective treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is through surgical decompression. Recently, interspinous devices have been used in lieu of standard laminectomy. METHODS:A review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and March 2010. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies comparing surgical decompression with interspinous-device placement for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. First, studies making the direct comparison (cohort or randomized trials) were searched. Second, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing each treatment to conservative management were searched to allow for an indirect comparison through a modified network analysis approach. Comparison studies involving simultaneous decompression with placement of an interspinous device were not included. Studies that did not have a comparison group were not included since a treatment effect could not be calculated. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the GRADE criteria assessing quality, quantity, and consistency of results. The strengths of evidence for indirect comparisons were downgraded. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS:We identified five studies meeting our inclusion criteria. No RCTs or cohort studies were identified that made the direct comparison of interspinous-device placement with surgical decompression. For the indirect comparison, three RCTs compared surgical decompression to conservative management and two RCTs compared interspinous-device placement to conservative management. There was low evidence supporting greater treatment effects for interspinous-device placement compared to decompression for disability and pain outcomes at 12 months. There was low evidence demonstrating little to no difference in treatment effects between the groups for walking distance and complication rates. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The indirect treatment effect for disability and pain favors the interspinous device compared to decompression. The low evidence suggests that any further research is very likely to have an important impact on the confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. No significant treatment effect differences were observed for postoperative walking distance improvement or complication rates; however, findings should be considered with caution because of indirect comparisons and short follow-up periods.

Before the advent of minimally invasive surgery for microdiscectomy, an open microdiscectomy had been the standard surgical intervention. Minimally invasive techniques have recently become more popular based upon the premise that smaller, less traumatic incisions should afford better recovery times and outcomes. From 2005 to 2008 we analyzed the outcomes of 25 patients who received an open microdiscectomy compared to 20 patients who received a minimally invasive microdiscectomy by the senior author (DC) in the lumbar region for disc herniation. A retrospective analysis was performed by carefully reviewing medical records for perioperative and immediate postoperative outcomes, and clinical follow-up was obtained either in the clinic or by telephone. There were no statistically significant differences between the minimally invasive and open groups in terms of operative time, length of stay, neurological outcome, complication rate, or change in pain score (pain improvement).

OBJECT/OBJECTIVE:Whereas standard anterior approaches for thoracolumbar corpectomies have commonly been used, the transpedicular technique is increasingly used to perform corpectomies from a posterior approach. The authors conducted a study to analyze whether there was a difference in outcomes by comparing transpedicular corpectomies to standard anterior thoracolumbar corpectomies. METHODS:The senior author performed thoracolumbar corpectomies in 80 patients between 2004 and 2008. The authors reviewed medical records and follow-up data, consisting of clinic visits, radiographs, or telephone interviews. Neurological outcome, complications, operative times, revision surgery rates, and estimated blood loss (EBL) were evaluated. RESULTS:Thirty-four patients underwent transpedicular corpectomies, and 46 patients underwent anterior thoracolumbar approaches. Single-level transpedicular corpectomies appear to be comparable to anterior-only corpectomies in terms of EBL, operative time, and complication rates. There was a higher complication rate, increased EBL, and longer operative time with anterior-posterior corpectomies compared with transpedicular corpectomies. Patients undergoing transpedicular corpectomies had a greater recovery of neurological function than those in whom anterior-approach corpectomies were performed. CONCLUSIONS:The transpedicular corpectomy appears to have a comparable morbidity rate to anterior-only corpectomies, but its morbidity rate is lower than that of anterior-posterior corpectomies.

The cannabinoid 1 (CB(1)) and cannabinoid 2 (CB(2)) receptor agonist Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) has been shown to be a broad-range inhibitor of cancer in culture and in vivo, and is currently being used in a clinical trial for the treatment of glioblastoma. It has been suggested that other plant-derived cannabinoids, which do not interact efficiently with CB(1) and CB(2) receptors, can modulate the actions of Delta(9)-THC. There are conflicting reports, however, as to what extent other cannabinoids can modulate Delta(9)-THC activity, and most importantly, it is not clear whether other cannabinoid compounds can either potentiate or inhibit the actions of Delta(9)-THC. We therefore tested cannabidiol, the second most abundant plant-derived cannabinoid, in combination with Delta(9)-THC. In the U251 and SF126 glioblastoma cell lines, Delta(9)-THC and cannabidiol acted synergistically to inhibit cell proliferation. The treatment of glioblastoma cells with both compounds led to significant modulations of the cell cycle and induction of reactive oxygen species and apoptosis as well as specific modulations of extracellular signal-regulated kinase and caspase activities. These specific changes were not observed with either compound individually, indicating that the signal transduction pathways affected by the combination treatment were unique. Our results suggest that the addition of cannabidiol to Delta(9)-THC may improve the overall effectiveness of Delta(9)-THC in the treatment of glioblastoma in cancer patients.