Robot-assisted percutaneous insertion of pedicle screws is a recent technique demonstrating high accuracy. The optimal treatment for spondylodiscitis is still a matter of debate. We performed a retrospective cohort study on surgical patients treated with pedicle screw/rod placement alone without the application of intervertebral cages. In this collective, we compare conventional open to a further minimalized percutaneous robot-assisted spinal instrumentation, avoiding a direct contact of implants and infectious focus. 90 records and CT scans of patients treated by dorsal transpedicular instrumentation of the infected segments with and without decompression and antibiotic therapy were analysed for clinical and radiological outcome parameters. 24 patients were treated by free-hand fluoroscopy-guided surgery (121 screws), and 66 patients were treated by percutaneous robot-assisted spinal instrumentation (341 screws). Accurate screw placement was confirmed in 90 % of robot-assisted and 73.5 % of free-hand placed screws. Implant revision due to misplacement was necessary in 4.95 % of the free-hand group compared to 0.58 % in the robot-assisted group. The average intraoperative X-ray exposure per case was 0.94 ± 1.04 min in the free-hand group vs. 0.4 ± 0.16 min in the percutaneous group (p = 0.000). Intraoperative adverse events were observed in 12.5 % of free-hand placed pedicle screws and 6.1 % of robot robot-assisted screws. The mean postoperative hospital stay in the free-hand group was 18.1 ± 12.9 days, and in percutaneous group, 13.8 ± 5.6 days (p = 0.012). This study demonstrates that the robot-guided insertion of pedicle screws is a safe and effective procedure in lumbar and thoracic spondylodiscitis with higher accuracy of implant placement, lower radiation dose, and decreased complication rates. Percutaneous spinal dorsal instrumentation seems to be sufficient to treat lumbar and thoracic spondylodiscitis.
BackgroundThe DNA repair protein O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) causes resistance of cancer cells to alkylating agents and, therefore, is a well-established predictive marker for high-grade gliomas that are routinely treated with alkylating drugs. Since MGMT is highly epigenetically regulated, the MGMT promoter methylation status is taken as an indicator of MGMT silencing, predicting the outcome of glioma therapy. MGMT promoter methylation is usually determined by methylation specific PCR (MSP), which is a labor intensive and error-prone method often used semi-quantitatively. Searching for alternatives, we used closed-tube high resolution melt (HRM) analysis, which is a quantitative method, and compared it with MSP and pyrosequencing regarding its predictive value.ResultsWe analyzed glioblastoma cell lines with known MGMT activity and formalin-fixed samples from IDH1 wild-type high-grade glioma patients (WHO grade III/IV) treated with radiation and temozolomide by HRM, MSP, and pyrosequencing. The data were compared as to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients exhibiting the methylated and unmethylated MGMT status. A promoter methylation cut-off level relevant for PFS and OS was determined. In a multivariate Cox regression model, methylation of MGMT promoter of high-grade gliomas analyzed by HRM, but not MSP, was found to be an independent predictive marker for OS. Univariate Kaplan–Meier analyses revealed for PFS and OS a significant and better discrimination between methylated and unmethylated tumors when quantitative HRM was used instead of MSP.ConclusionsCompared to MSP and pyrosequencing, the HRM method is simple, cost effective, highly accurate and fast. HRM is at least equivalent to pyrosequencing in quantifying the methylation level. It is superior in predicting PFS and OS of high-grade glioma patients compared to MSP and, therefore, can be recommended being used routinely for determination of the MGMT status of gliomas.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13148-016-0204-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
A transmembrane protein CD133 has been implicated as a marker of stem-like glioma cells and predictor for therapeutic response in malignant brain tumours. CD133 expression is commonly evaluated by using antibodies specific for the AC133 epitope located in one of the extracellular domains of membrane-bound CD133. There is conflicting evidence regarding the significance of the AC133 epitope as a marker for identifying stem-like glioma cells and predicting the degree of malignancy in glioma cells. The reasons for discrepant results between different studies addressing the role of CD133/AC133 in gliomas are unclear. A possible source for controversies about CD133/AC133 is the widespread assumption that expression patterns of the AC133 epitope reflect linearly those of the CD133 protein. Consequently, the readouts from AC133 assessments are often interpreted in terms of the CD133 protein. The purpose of this study is to determine whether and to what extent do the readouts obtained with anti-AC133 antibody correspond to the level of CD133 protein expressed in stem-like glioma cells. Our study reveals for the first time that CD133 expressed on the surface of glioma cells is poorly immunoreactive for AC133. Furthermore, we provide evidence that the level of CD133 occupancy on the surface of glioma cells fluctuates during the cell cycle. Our results offer a new explanation for numerous inconsistencies regarding the biological and clinical significance of CD133/AC133 in human gliomas and call for caution in interpreting the lack or presence of AC133 epitope in glioma cells.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.