Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Ultrasonic aspiration in neurosurgery: comparative analysis of complications and outcome for three commonly used models
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Ultrasonic aspiration in neurosurgery: comparative analysis of complications and outcome for three commonly used models
Do you wish to request the book?
Ultrasonic aspiration in neurosurgery: comparative analysis of complications and outcome for three commonly used models
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Ultrasonic aspiration in neurosurgery: comparative analysis of complications and outcome for three commonly used models
2019
Overview
IntroductionUltrasonic aspiration (UA) devices are commonly used for resecting intracranial tumors, as they allow for internal debulking of large tumors, hereby avoiding damage to adjacent brain tissue during the dissection. Little is known about their comparative safety profiles.Methods and materialsWe analyzed data from a prospective patient registry. Procedures using one of the following UA models were included: Integra® CUSA, Söring®, and Stryker® Sonopet. The primary endpoint was morbidity at discharge, defined as significant worsening on the Karnofsky Performance Scale. Secondary endpoints included morbidity and mortality until 3 months postoperative (M3), occurrence, type, and etiology of complications.ResultsOf n = 1028 procedures, the CUSA was used in n = 354 (34.4 %), the Söring in n = 461 (44.8 %), and the Sonopet in n = 213 (20.7 %). There was some heterogeneity of study groups. In multivariable analysis, patients in the Söring (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.29; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.80–2.08; p = 0.299), and Sonopet group (aOR, 0.86; 95 % CI, 0.46–1.61; p = 0.645) were as likely as patients in the CUSA group to experience discharge morbidity. At M3, patients in the Söring (aOR, 1.20; 95 % CI, 0.78–1.86; p = 0.415) and Sonopet group (aOR, 0.53; 95 % CI, 0.26–1.08; p = 0.080) were as likely as patients in the CUSA group to experience morbidity. There were also no differences for M3 morbidity in subgroup analyses for gliomas, meningiomas, and metastases. The grade (p = 0.608) and etiology (p = 0.849) of postoperative complications were similar.ConclusionsNeurosurgeons select UA types with regard to certain case-specific characteristics. The safety profiles of three commonly used UA types appear mostly similar.
