Comparison of Navigated and Frame-Based Stereotactic Biopsy-A Single-Center Cohort Study.

Background and Objectives: As brain lesions present complex diagnostic challenges, accurate tissue sampling via biopsy is critical for effective treatment planning. Traditional frame-based stereotactic biopsy has been complemented by navigated biopsy techniques, leveraging advancements in imaging and navigation technology. This study aims to compare the navigated and frame-based stereotactic biopsy methods in a clinical setting, evaluating their efficacy, safety, and diagnostic outcomes to determine the optimal approach for precise brain lesion targeting. Materials and Methods: retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent brain biopsies between January 2017 and August 2023 at an academic medical center. Data on patient demographics, clinical characteristics, biopsy technique (navigated vs. frame-based), and outcomes including accuracy, complications, and hospital stay duration were analyzed. Results: The cohort comprised 112 patients, with no significant age or gender differences between groups. Symptoms leading to biopsy were predominantly diminished muscle strength (42.0%), cognitive issues (28.6%), and aphasia (24.1%). Tumors were most common in the deep hemisphere (24.1%). The median hospital stay was 5 days, with a rehospitalization rate of 27.7%. Complications occurred in 4.47% of patients, showing no significant difference between biopsy methods. However, navigated biopsies resulted in fewer samples (p < 0.001) but with comparable diagnostic accuracy as frame-based biopsies. Conclusions: Navigated and frame-based stereotactic biopsies are both effective and safe, with comparable accuracy and complication rates. The choice of technique should consider lesion specifics, surgeon preference, and technological availability. The findings highlight the importance of advanced neurosurgical techniques in enhancing patient care and outcomes.

Assessment of Radiation Dosage to the Hippocampi during Treatment of Multiple Brain Metastases Using Gamma Knife Therapy.

Background and Objectives: Brain metastases (BMs) pose significant clinical challenges in systemic cancer patients. They often cause symptoms related to brain compression and are typically managed with multimodal therapies, such as surgery, chemotherapy, whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT), and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). With modern oncology treatments prolonging survival, concerns about the neurocognitive side effects of BM treatments are growing. WBRT, though widely used for multiple BMs, has recognized neurocognitive toxicity. SRS, particularly Gamma Knife (GK) therapy, offers a minimally invasive alternative with fewer side effects, suitable for patients with a quantifiable number of metastases and better prognoses. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 94 patients with multiple BMs treated exclusively with GK at an academic medical center. Patients with prior WBRT were excluded. This study focused on the mean radiation dose received by the hippocampal area, estimated according to the 'Hippocampal Contouring: A Contouring Atlas for RTOG 0933' guidelines. Results: The precision of GK equipment results in mean doses of radiation that are lower than those suggested by RTOG 0933 and observed in other studies. This precision may help mitigate cognitive dysfunction and other side effects of hippocampal irradiation. Conclusions: GK therapy facilitates the administration of smaller, safer radiation doses to the hippocampi, which is advantageous even for lesions in the temporal lobe. It is feasible to treat multiple metastases, including cases with more than 10, but it is typically reserved for patients with fewer metastases, with an average of 3 in this study. This underlines GK's potential for reducing adverse effects while managing BMs effectively.

Evaluation of Patient's Quality of Life before and after Implantation of Abbott's Proclaim™ XR Spinal Cord Stimulator with BurstDR™ Stimulation in Chronic Pain Syndrome.

Background and Objectives: In case of the ineffectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in managing chronic neuropathic pain, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) with BurstDR™ stimulation may reduce pain and increase the quality of life. The term "burst" refers to a series of stimulation impulses that are compressed into small packets and separated by intervals of latency. Materials and Methods: A group of 30 consecutive patients who received the BurstDR™ stimulator using the minimally invasive percutaneous method was selected. Patients selected for our study underwent numerous spinal surgeries before SCS implantation. In the study, analgesics and co-analgesics and their doses used by patients before and 6 months after SCS implantation were examined and compared. Using the visual analogue scale (VAS), pain was compared before and after the procedure. Patients` quality of life was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Results: We observed a significant reduction in opioid daily doses by an average of 32.4% (±36.1%) and a reduction in paracetamol daily doses by an average of 40% (±33.4%). There was a reduction in pregabalin doses as well. Ketoprofen daily dose reduction was 85.4 mg. The mean VAS difference before and after procedure was 3.9 (±2.3), and the mean difference in ODI was 12.9 (±9), which benefits operative treatment. The VAS and ODI results were statistically significant as well. Conclusions: According to our research, BurstDR™ stimulation improves the quality of life by reducing doses of analgesics and the level of pain.

Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke during the COVID-19 Pandemic-Polish Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.

COVID-19 has affected the entire world and has had a great impact on healthcare, influencing the treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care of patients with AIS. We performed a retrospective analysis of 1599 patients diagnosed with AIS and hospitalized in the authors' institution from January 2018 to December 2021. The final sample consisted of 265 patients treated with thrombolysis without a diagnosis of COVID-19. The initiation of thrombolytic treatment during the pandemic was delayed (2:42 ± 0:51 vs. 2:25 ± 0:53; p = 0.0006). The delay was mainly related to the pre-hospital phase (1:41 ± 0:48 vs. 1:26 ± 0:49; p = 0.0014), and the door-to-needle time was not affected. There were no differences in stroke severity and patients' outcomes. Patients with AIS were less likely to have previously been diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (16.9% vs. 26.7%; p = 0.0383), ischemic heart disease (25.3% vs. 46.5%; p = 0.0003) and hyperlipidemia (31.2% vs. 46.5%; p = 0.0264). Patients treated during the pandemic had higher glycemia (149.45 ± 54. vs. 143.25 ± 60.71 mg/dL; p= 0.0012), while no significant differences in their lipid profiles were found. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic affected the treatment of AIS patients locally at our stroke center. It caused treatment delay and hindered the recognition of risk factors prior to the occurrence of AIS.