Background and Purpose— Radial artery catheterization is an alternate route of access that has started to gain more widespread use for neuroendovascular procedures, and there have been few studies that describe its safety and efficacy. We present our institution’s experience in performing neuroendovascular interventions via a transradial approach, with excellent clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction measures. Methods— We conducted a retrospective analysis and identified 223 patients who underwent 233 consecutive neuroendovascular interventions via radial artery access at our institution. The incidence of perioperative and postprocedural complications was investigated. We identified a subset of 98 patients who have undergone both transradial and transfemoral cerebral angiograms and compared clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction measures between the 2 groups. Results— The overall incidence of complications was low across all procedures performed via transradial access. Peri-procedurally, only 2 patients had symptomatic radial artery spasm, and there were no instances of iatrogenic complications (vessel dissection, stroke, and hemorrhage). In 10 cases (4.3%), the intended procedure could not be completed via a transradial approach, and, thus, femoral artery access had to be pursued instead. Ten patients complained of minor postprocedural complications, although none required therapeutic intervention. The mean procedure time was shorter for diagnostic angiograms performed via transradial versus transfemoral access (18.8±15.8 versus 39.5±31.1 minutes; P =0.025). Patients overall reported shorter recovery times with transradial access, and the majority of patients (94%) would elect to have subsequent procedures performed via this route. Conclusions— Radial artery catheterization is a safe and durable alternative to perform a wide range of neuroendovascular procedures, with a low rate of complications. On the whole, patients prefer transradial compared with transfemoral access.

Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) is a rare but potentially devastating cause of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Decompressive surgery is the standard of care for OPLL and can be achieved through anterior, posterior, or combined approaches to the cervical spine. Surgical correction of OPLL via any approach is associated with higher rates of complications and the presence of OPLL is considered a significant risk factor for perioperative complications in DCM surgeries. Potential complications include dural tear (DT) and subsequent cerebrospinal fluid leak, C5 palsy, hematoma, hardware failure, surgical site infections, and other neurological deficits. Anterior approaches are technically more demanding and associated with higher rates of DT but offer greater access to ventral OPLL pathology. Posterior approaches are associated with lower rates of complications but may allow for continued disease progression. Therefore, the decision to pursue either an anterior or posterior approach to surgical decompression may be critically influenced by complications associated with each procedure. The authors critically review anterior and posterior approaches to surgical decompression of OPLL with particular focus on the complications associated with each approach. We also review the recent work in developing new surgical treatments for OPLL that aim to reduce complication incidence.

OBJECTIVEIn this study, the authors aimed to investigate procedural and clinical outcomes between radial and femoral artery access in patients undergoing thrombectomy for acute stroke.METHODSThe authors conducted a single-institution retrospective analysis of 104 patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy, 52 via transradial access and 52 via traditional transfemoral access. They analyzed various procedural and clinical metrics between the two patient cohorts.RESULTSThere was no difference between patient demographics or presenting symptoms of stroke severity between patients treated via transradial or transfemoral access. The mean procedural time was similar between the two treatment cohorts: 60.35 ± 36.81 minutes for the transradial group versus 65.50 ± 29.92 minutes for the transfemoral group (p = 0.451). The mean total fluoroscopy time for the procedure was similar between the two patient cohorts (20.31 ± 11.68 for radial vs 18.49 ± 11.78 minutes for femoral, p = 0.898). The majority of patients underwent thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score 2b/3 revascularization, regardless of access site (92.3% for radial vs 94.2% for femoral, p = 0.696). There was no significant difference in the incidence of access site or periprocedural complications between the transradial and transfemoral cohorts.CONCLUSIONSAcute stroke intervention performed via transradial access is feasible and effective, with no significant difference in procedural and clinical outcomes compared with traditional transfemoral access. Larger studies are required to further validate the efficacy and limitations of transradial access for neurointerventional procedures.