OBJECTIVE Delayed ischemic neurological deficit (DIND) is seen as a clinical manifestation of cerebral vasospasm and is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). Currently, the standard of care for DIND prevention in patients who have sustained aSAH is prophylactic nimodipine therapy and ensuring adequate fluid intake, alongside other treatments such as bowel care. Osmotic laxatives trap water within the bowel lumen to accelerate the transport of the gut contents through the bowel. Given the potential for DIND secondary to cerebral vasospasm, it is perhaps counterintuitive that gastrointestinal fluid loss and use of osmotic laxatives are not commonly considered in many aSAH management protocols. METHODS A retrospective case note analysis was performed for all adult patients (aged > 16 years) admitted to the Department of Neurosurgery at Leeds General Infirmary with a diagnosis of aSAH between August 2019 and September 2020. RESULTS A total of 105 patients were included, 62% of whom were female, with a mean and median age of 54 years (range 24–84 years). Diarrhea was noted in 12 patients (11.4%), 58% of whom subsequently developed DIND (OR 15.30, CI 3.92–59.14; p = 0.0001). All patients received osmotic laxatives (97% having received ≥ 2 laxative agents). CONCLUSIONS Patients with aSAH who subsequently developed diarrhea had significantly increased odds of developing DIND. Enteral volume loss due to osmotic laxative use is a potential risk factor for DIND after aSAH.

No abstract

Objective To assess postoperative outcomes following lumbar microdiscectomy (LMD) with and without the use of a dynamic intralaminar device IntraSPINE ® . Methods A non-randomized single-surgeon retrospective analysis. Consecutive elective surgery was performed on patients with lumbar disc disease over a 16-month period. The study group was determined by electronic theatre database. Ninety-two (62 LMD and 30 ILD) of the 95 eligible patients were included in the study, with three being excluded due to incomplete data sets. The pain scores were assessed pre- and postoperatively using a 4-point scale (0 – pain free; 1 – mild; 2- moderate; 3 – severe). Results The reduction in postoperative leg pain was similar (LMD 1.9 vs. IntraSPINE® 1.8) but the reduction in postoperative back pain was greater in the IntraSPINE® group (LMD 0.5 vs. IntraSPINE® 1.0; p = 0.17). Early recurrence of disc herniation (< 8 months) was lower in the IntraSPINE® group (6.7% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.097). The need for revision surgery was significantly lower in the IntraSPINE® group (p = 0.015). None of the IntraSPINE® recurrences required revision surgery, compared to 97% of the recurrences in the LMD group. Conclusions This case series raises the possibility that in selected patients, the use of the IntraSPINE® may improve back pain and reduce recurrent disc herniation/revision surgery rates in lumbar microdiscectomy. A prospective randomized trial on the use of the IntraSPINE® should be considered, given the clinical and cost implications of revision surgery. Level of Evidence IV; Case series.