The Neurosurgery Match: COVID Comparison and Bibliometric Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Because of the effect of COVID on academic opportunities, as well as limitations on travel, away rotations and in-person interviews, COVID-related changes could impact the neurosurgical resident demographics. Our aim was to retrospectively review the demographics of the previous four years of neurosurgery residents, provide bibliometric analysis of successful applicants, and analyze for the effects of COVID on the match cycle. METHODS: All AANS residency program websites were examined for a list of demographic characteristics for current post-graduate year (PGY) 1 to 4. Gathered information included gender, undergraduate and medical institution and state, medical degree status, and prior graduate programs. RESULTS: A total of 114 institutions and 946 residents were included in the final review. 676 (71.5%) of the residents included in the analysis were male. Of the 783 who studied within the United States, 221 (28.2%) residents stayed within the same state of his or her medical school. 104 of 555 (18.7%) residents stayed within the same state of his or her undergraduate school. Demographic information as well as geographic switching relative to medical school, undergraduate school, and hometown showed no significant changes between pre-COVID and COVID-matched cohorts overall. The median number of publications per resident significantly increased for the COVID-matched cohort (median, 1; interquartile range (IQR), 0-4.75) when compared to the non-COVID-matched cohort (median, 1; IQR, 0-3, p = 0.004) as did first author publications (median, 1; IQR, 0-1 vs median, 1; IQR, 0-1; p = 0.015), respectively. The number of residents matching into the same region in the Northeast relative to undergraduate degree was significantly greater after COVID (56 (58%) vs 36 (42%), p = 0.026). The West demonstrated a significant increase in the mean number of total publications (4.0 ± 8.5 vs 2.3 ± 4.2, p = 0.02) and first author publications (1.24 ± 2.33 vs 0.68 ± 1.47, p = 0.02) after COVID, with the increase in first author publications being significant in a test of medians. CONCLUSION: Herein we characterized the most recently matched neurosurgery applicants, paying particular attention to changes over time in relation to the onset of the pandemic. Apart from publication volume, characteristics of residents and geographical preferences did not change with the influence of COVID-induced changes in the application process.

Safety of the utilization of telemedicine for brain tumor neurosurgery follow-up.

Background: There is a need to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent brain tumor surgery with subsequent telemedicine or in-person follow-up during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We retrospectively included all patients who underwent surgery for brain tumor resection by a single neurosurgeon at our Institution from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions (March 2020) to August 2021. Outcomes were assessed by stratifying the patients using their preference for follow-up method (telemedicine or in-person). Results: Three-hundred and eighteen (318) brain tumor patients who were included. The follow-up method of choice was telemedicine (TM) in 185 patients (58.17%), and in-person (IP) consults in 133 patients. We found that patients followed by TM lived significantly farther, with a median of 36.34 miles, compared to a median of 22.23 miles in the IP cohort (P = .0025). We found no statistical difference between the TM and the IP group, when comparing visits to the emergency department (ED) within 30 days after surgery (7.3% vs 6.01%, P = .72). Readmission rates, wound infections, and 30-day mortality were similar in both cohorts. These findings were also consistent after matching cohorts using a propensity score. The percentage of telemedicine follow-up consults was higher in the first semester (73.17%) of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to the second (46.21%), and third semesters (47.86%). Conclusions: Telehealth follow-up alternatives may be safely offered to patients after brain tumor surgery, thereby reducing patient burden in those with longer distances to the hospital or special situations as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Safety of the Utilization of Telemedicine for Brain Tumor Neurosurgery Follow-Up

Background There is a need to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent brain tumor surgery with subsequent telemedicine or in-person follow-up during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We retrospectively included all patients who underwent surgery for brain tumor resection by a single neurosurgeon at our Institution from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions (March 2020) to August 2021. Outcomes were assessed by stratifying the patients using their preference for follow-up method (telemedicine or in-person). Results Three-hundred and eighteen (318) brain tumor patients who were included. The follow-up method of choice was telemedicine (TM) in 185 patients (58.17%), and in-person (IP) consults in 133 patients. We found that patients followed by TM lived significantly farther, with a median of 36.34 miles, compared to a median of 22.23 miles in the IP cohort (p = 0.0025). We found no statistical difference between the TM and the IP group, when comparing visits to the emergency department (ED) within 30 days after surgery (7.3% vs 6.01%, p=0.72). Readmission rates, wound infections and 30-day mortality were similar in both cohorts. These findings were also consistent after matching cohorts using a propensity score. The percentage of telemedicine follow-up consults was higher in the first semester (73.17%) of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to the second (46.21%) and third semesters (47.86%). Conclusions Telehealth follow-up alternatives may be safely offered to patients after brain tumor surgery, thereby reducing patient burden in those with longer distances to the hospital or special situations as the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Focused Neurosurgical Examination During Telehealth Visits: Guidelines During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond.

OBJECTIVE:  To provide guidelines to healthcare workers for performing a focused neurological examination via telemedicine during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-2019) pandemic. METHODS:  We reviewed our department's outpatient clinic visits after the implementation of a telemedicine protocol in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Crossover rates from telehealth to in-person visits were evaluated and guidelines for performing a telemedicine neurological exam were created based on the consensus of 16 neurosurgical attending providers over a four-month period. RESULTS:  From March 23, 2020 to July 20, 2020, some 2157 telehealth visits were performed in our department. Some 26 were converted to in-person visits by the provider request with the most cited reason for conversion being the need for a more detailed patient evaluation. Based on these experiences, we created a graphical tutorial to address the key components of the neurological exam with adaptations specific to the telehealth visit. CONCLUSIONS:  In response to the global coronavirus pandemic, telemedicine has become an integral part of neurosurgeons' daily practice. Telemedicine failures remain low but primarily occur due to a need for more comprehensive evaluations. We provide guidelines for the neurosurgical exam during telehealth visits in an effort to assuage some of these issues.

Telemedicine in Neurosurgery: Lessons Learned from a Systematic Review of the Literature for the COVID-19 Era and Beyond.

BACKGROUND: Evolving requirements for patient and physician safety and rapid regulatory changes have stimulated interest in neurosurgical telemedicine in the COVID-19 era. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review investigating treatment of neurosurgical patients via telemedicine, and to evaluate barriers and challenges. Additionally, we review recent regulatory changes that affect telemedicine in neurosurgery, and our institution's initial experience. METHODS: A systematic review was performed including all studies investigating success regarding treatment of neurosurgical patients via telemedicine. We reviewed our department's outpatient clinic billing records after telemedicine was implemented from 3/23/2020 to 4/6/2020 and reviewed modifier 95 inclusion to determine the number of face-to-face and telemedicine visits, as well as breakdown of weekly telemedicine clinic visits by subspecialty. RESULTS: A total of 52 studies (25 prospective and 27 retrospective) with 45 801 patients were analyzed. A total of 13 studies were conducted in the United States and 39 in foreign countries. Patient management was successful via telemedicine in 99.6% of cases. Telemedicine visits failed in 162 cases, 81.5% of which were due to technology failure, and 18.5% of which were due to patients requiring further face-to-face evaluation or treatment. A total of 16 studies compared telemedicine encounters to alternative patient encounter mediums; telemedicine was equivalent or superior in 15 studies. From 3/23/2020 to 4/6/2020, our department had 122 telemedicine visits (65.9%) and 63 face-to-face visits (34.1%). About 94.3% of telemedicine visits were billed using face-to-face procedural codes. CONCLUSION: Neurosurgical telemedicine encounters appear promising in resource-scarce times, such as during global pandemics.

Neuro-oncology practice guidelines from a high-volume surgeon at the COVID-19 epicenter.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) pandemic, physicians have begun adapting their daily practices to prevent transmissions. In this study we aimed to provide surgical neuro-oncologists with practice guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic based on objective data from a high-volume brain tumor surgeon at the current COVID-19 epicenter. METHODS: All outpatient visits and surgeries performed by the senior author during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared between the initial quarantine (3/23/20-5/4/20), the plateau period following quarantine (5/5/20-6/27/20), and the second peak (6/28/20-7/20/20). In-person and telemedicine visits were evaluated for crossovers. Surgeries were subdivided based on lesion type and evaluated across the same time period. RESULTS: From 3/23/20-7/20/20, 469 clinic visits and 196 surgeries were identified. After quarantine was lifted, face-to-face visits increased (P < 0.01) yet no change in telehealth visits occurred. Of 327 telehealth visits, only 5.8% converted to in-person during the 4-month period with the most cited reason being patient preference (68.4%). Of the 196 surgeries performed during the pandemic, 29.1% occurred during quarantine, 49.0% during the plateau, and 21.9% occurred in the second peak. No COVID negative patients developed symptoms at follow-up. 55.6% were performed on malignant tumors and 31.6% were benign with no difference in case volumes throughout the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Despite exceptional challenges, we have maintained a high-volume surgical neuro-oncology practice at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. We provide the protocols implemented at our institution in order to maximize neuro-oncology care while mitigating risk of COVID-19 exposure to both patients and providers.

Differences Between Neurosurgical Subspecialties in Telehealth Adoption.

OBJECTIVE: The health care field has been faced with unprecedented challenges during the COVID 19 pandemic. One such challenge was the implementation of enhanced telehealth capabilities to ensure continuity of care. In this study, we aim to understand differences between subspecialties with regard to patient consent and satisfaction following telehealth implementation. METHODS: A retrospective review of the electronic medical record was performed from March 2 to May 8, 2020 to evaluate surgical consents before and after telehealth implementation. Press Ganey survey results were also obtained both pre- and posttelehealth implementation and compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the percentage of new patients consented for surgery (after being seen via telehealth only) between the cranial and spine services. For procedures in which >10 patients were consented for surgery, the highest proportion of patients seen only via telehealth was for ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement/endoscopic third ventriculostomy for the cranial service, and lumbar laminectomy and microdiscectomy for the spine service. Additionally, the spine service experienced marked improvement in Press Ganey scores posttelehealth implementation with overall doctor ranking improving from the 29th to the 93rd percentile, and likelihood to recommend increasing from the 24th to the 94th percentile. CONCLUSIONS: There were clear trends with regard to which pathologies and procedures were most amenable to telehealth visits, which suggests a potential roadmap for future clinic planning. Additionally, the notable improvement in spine patient satisfaction following the implementation of a telehealth program suggests the need for long-term process changes.

Early Changes to Neurosurgery Resident Training During the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Large U.S. Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to sweeping changes in residency programs across the world, including cancellation of elective cases. The effects of safety measures on neurosurgical training remain unclear. To understand how neurosurgical residents have been affected, we analyzed the operative experience in the months leading up to and during the pandemic. METHODS: The resident and institutional case totals were tallied for a single residency program in Miami-Dade County from January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020. A matched cohort analysis was performed before and during the pandemic to assess the effects on resident surgical training. RESULTS: The case totals for all levels of training were lower when restrictions were placed on elective surgeries. An average of 11 cases was logged in April 2020, a decrease from 26 cases in April 2019 (95% confidence interval, 8.7-22; P < 0.01). An average of 20 cases was logged in May 2020, a decrease from 25 cases in May 2019 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-8.8; P = 0.01). In April and May 2020, 299 (66%) and 148 (50%) fewer cases had been performed at our institution compared with April and May 2109. CONCLUSIONS: Operative experience was reduced for residents during the months when the performance of elective cases was restricted. Our data suggest experience in some areas of neurosurgery were more affected than were others, and residents at different levels of training were also affected differently. However, the extent of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on neurosurgical training is unlikely to be understood in the short term.

Telemedicine for Outpatient Neurosurgical Oncology Care: Lessons Learned for the Future During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus 2019 (COVD-19) pandemic has drastically disrupted the delivery of neurosurgical care, especially for the already at-risk neuro-oncology population. The sudden change to clinic visits has rapidly spurned the implementation of telemedicine. A recommendation care paradigm of neuro-oncologic patients limited by telemedicine has not been reported. METHODS: A summary of a multi-institution experience detailing the potential benefits, pitfalls, and the necessary considerations to outpatient care of neurosurgical oncology patients. RESULTS: There are limitations and advantages to incorporating telemedicine into the outpatient care of neuro-oncology patients. Telemedicine-specific considerations for each step and stakeholder of the appointment (physician, patient, scheduling, previsit, imaging, and physical examination) are examined. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine, pushed to prominence during this COVID-19 pandemic, is a powerful and possibly preferential tool for the future of outpatient neuro-oncologic care.