THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE TECHNIQUES IN NEUROSURGERY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.862Keywords:
Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery, Efficacy, Safety, Clinical Outcomes, Comparative Analysis, Perioperative OutcomesAbstract
Neurosurgery's minimally invasive treatments have become more popular because they may lower the dangers involved with open operations without sacrificing effectiveness. However, a thorough assessment of their efficacy, safety, and comparative results is necessary before they may be widely used. Objective: This research aimed to analyze clinical outcome data to systematically assess the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive procedures in neurosurgery. Methods: The retrospective cohort research was conducted at Hayatabad Medical Complex in Peshawar from January to December 2022. The power analysis resulted in a sample size of 360 patients. Extensive data extraction from electronic medical records was used for data collecting; this included information on clinical features, long-term follow-up results, intraoperative and postoperative data, and demographics. While inferential statistics, such as chi-square tests, were used to clarify the associations between various factors and surgical outcomes, descriptive statistics were used to characterize the clinical and demographic aspects of the research cohort. Results: A demographic distribution of 33.61% for those aged 20–40, 44.44% for those aged 41–60, and 23.06% for those over 60 was found in the research (n = 360). 55.00% of patients were male, and 45.00% were female. Obesity (20.00%), diabetes (25.00%), and hypertension (30.28%) were among the comorbidities. 60.56% of the preoperative status was independent. 5.28% intraoperative problems, 83.61% success rates, and 14.44% postoperative complications were reported in the surgical results. Compared to open surgery, the success rate for minimally invasive lumbar fusion was considerably more significant (74% vs. 57%, p=0.044). Recurrence rates were 9.17%, and 74.72% of patients had favorable functional results, according to long-term follow-up data. Surgical site infections (8.06%), bleeding (5.00%), and neurological impairments (3.16%) were among the complications. The perioperative results indicated a 3.89% conversion rate to open surgery, an average blood loss of 220 ml, and an operating duration of 3.5 hours. Conclusion: The research highlights favorable surgical results, similar long-term patient outcomes, and uniform perioperative parameters to reinforce the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive neurosurgery. To maximize patient care and safety in neurosurgical practice, issues, including infection control and technology learning curves, need constant attention.
Downloads
References
Ishii M, Gallia GL. Application of technology for minimally invasive neurosurgery. Neurosurgery Clinics. 2010 Oct 1;21(4):585-94.
Liu CY, Spicer M, Apuzzo ML. The genesis of neurosurgery and the evolution of the neurosurgical operative environment: Part II—Concepts for future development, 2003 and beyond. Neurosurgery. 2003 Jan 1;52(1):20-35.
Lu VM, Alvi MA, Goyal A, Kerezoudis P, Bydon M. The potential of minimally invasive surgery to treat metastatic spinal disease versus open surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World neurosurgery. 2018 Apr 1;112:e859-68.
Ashammakhi N, Ahadian S, Darabi MA, El Tahchi M, Lee J, Suthiwanich K, Sheikhi A, Dokmeci MR, Oklu R, Khademhosseini A. Minimally invasive and regenerative therapeutics. Advanced Materials. 2019 Jan;31(1):1804041.
Banczerowski P, Czigléczki G, Papp Z, Veres R, Rappaport HZ, Vajda J. Minimally invasive spine surgery: systematic review. Neurosurgical review. 2015 Jan;38:11-26.
Kingsly EN, Bozkurt I, Chaurasia B. Neuro-navigation: equipment, tips, and tricks on brain navigated surgery. Indian Journal of Neurosurgery. 2023 Apr 14.
Kurland DB, Khaladj-Ghom A, Stokum JA, Carusillo B, Karimy JK, Gerzanich V, Sahuquillo J, Simard JM. Complications associated with decompressive craniectomy: a systematic review. Neurocritical care. 2015 Oct;23:292-304.
Grunert P. From the idea to its realization: the evolution of minimally invasive techniques in neurosurgery. Minimally invasive surgery. 2013 Dec 17;2013.
Iglesias AH. Transcranial magnetic stimulation as treatment in multiple neurologic conditions. Current neurology and neuroscience reports. 2020 Jan;20:1-9.
Tang Y, Yin F, Fu D, Gao X, Lv Z, Li X. Efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgery treatment in hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC neurology. 2018 Dec;18:1-1.
Fecso AB, Szasz P, Kerezov G, Grantcharov TP. The effect of technical performance on patient outcomes in surgery: a systematic review. Annals of surgery. 2017 Mar 1;265(3):492-501.
Darzi A, Munz Y. The impact of minimally invasive surgical techniques. Annu. Rev. Med.. 2004 Feb 18;55:223-37.
Gandaglia G, Ghani KR, Sood A, Meyers JR, Sammon JD, Schmid M, Varda B, Briganti A, Montorsi F, Sun M, Menon M. Effect of minimally invasive surgery on the risk for surgical site infections: results from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Database. JAMA surgery. 2014 Oct 1;149(10):1039-44.
Spetzger U, Schilling AV, Winkler G, Wahrburg J, König A. The past, present, and future of minimally invasive spine surgery: a review and speculative outlook. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies. 2013 Aug 1;22(4):227-41.
Gandhoke GS, Shin HM, Chang YF, Tempel Z, Gerszten PC, Okonkwo DO, Kanter AS. A cost-effectiveness comparison between open transforaminal and minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusions using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at 2-year follow-up. Neurosurgery. 2016 Apr 1;78(4):585-95.
Dasenbrock HH, Juraschek SP, Schultz LR, Witham TF, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Bydon A. The efficacy of minimally invasive discectomy compared with open discectomy: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2012 May 1;16(5):452-62.
Brandt B, Sioulas V, Basaran D, Kuhn T, LaVigne K, Gardner GJ, Sonoda Y, Chi DS, Roche KC, Mueller JJ, Jewell EL. Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy for radical hysterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: survival outcomes. Gynecologic oncology. 2020 Mar 1;156(3):591-7.
Hernández-Vaquero D, Fernández-Fairen M, Torres-Perez A, Santamaría A. Minimally invasive surgery versus conventional surgery. A review of the scientific evidence. Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología (English Edition). 2012 Nov 1;56(6):444-58.
Isiordia-Espinoza MA, Aragon-Martinez OH, Bollogna-Molina RE, Alonso-Castro ÁJ. Infection, alveolar osteitis, and adverse effects using metronidazole in healthy patients undergoing third molar surgery: A meta-analysis. Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery. 2018 Jun;17:142-9.
McGirt MJ, Parker S, Lerner J, Engelhart L, Wang MY. Comparative Analysis of Surgical Site Infection After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Posterior/Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Analysis of Hospital Billing and Discharge Data From 5328 Patients: 908. Neurosurgery. 2010 Aug 1;67(2):538-9.
Guan J, Bisson EF, Dailey AT, Hood RS, Schmidt MH. Comparison of clinical outcomes in the national neurosurgery quality and outcomes database for open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2016 Apr 1;41(7):E416-21.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 MIU HAQ , BU UJJAN , HA KHATTAK , F HAYAT , MA JAVED , . FAIZUDDIN, FG MUSTAFA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.