Background: Exoscopes are a safe and effective alternative or adjunct to the existing binocular surgical microscope for brain tumor, skull base surgery, aneurysm clipping and both cervical and lumbar complex spine surgery that probably will open a new era in the field of new tools and techniques in neurosurgery. Methods: A Pubmed and Ovid EMBASE search was performed to identify papers that include surgical experiences with the exoscope in neurosurgery. PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) were followed. Results: A total of 86 articles and 1711 cases were included and analyzed in this review. Among 86 papers included in this review 74 (86%) were published in the last 5 years. Out of 1711 surgical procedures, 1534 (89.6%) were performed in the operative room, whereas 177 (10.9%) were performed in the laboratory on cadavers. In more detail, 1251 (72.7%) were reported as brain surgeries, whereas 274 (16%) and 9 (0.5%) were reported as spine and peripheral nerve surgeries, respectively. Considering only the clinical series (40 studies and 1328 patients), the overall surgical complication rate was 2.6% during the use of the exoscope. These patients experienced complication profiles similar to those that underwent the same treatments with the OM. The overall switch incidence rate from exoscope to OM during surgery was 5.8%. Conclusions: The exoscope seems to be a safe alternative compared to an operative microscope for the most common brain and spinal procedures, with several advantages that have been reached, such as an easier simplicity of use and a better 3D vision and magnification of the surgical field. Moreover, it offers the opportunity of better interaction with other members of the surgical staff. All these points set the first step for subsequent and short-term changes in the field of neurosurgery and offer new educational possibilities for young neurosurgery and medical students.

OBJECT: Spinal metastasis is common in patients with cancer. About 70% of symptomatic lesions are found in the thoracic region of the spine, and cord compression presents as the initial symptom in 5%–10% of patients. Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has recently been advocated as a useful approach for spinal metastases, with the aim of decreasing the morbidity associated with more traditional open spine surgery; furthermore, the recovery time is reduced after MISS, such that postoperative chemotherapy and radiotherapy can begin sooner. METHODS: Two series of oncological patients, who presented with acute myelopathy due to vertebral thoracic metastases, were compared in this study. Patients with complete paraplegia for more than 24 hours and with a modified Bauer score greater than 2 were excluded from the study. The first group (n = 23) comprised patients who were prospectively enrolled from May 2010 to September 2013, and who were treated with minimally invasive laminotomy/laminectomy and percutaneous stabilization. The second group (n = 19) comprised patients from whom data were retrospectively collected before May 2010, and who had been treated with laminectomy and stabilization with traditional open surgery. Patient groups were similar regarding general characteristics and neurological impairment. Results were analyzed in terms of neurological recovery (American Spinal Injury Association grade), complications, pain relief (visual analog scale), and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BM22 scales) at the 30-day follow-up. Operation time, postoperative duration of bed rest, duration of hospitalization, intraoperative blood loss, and the need and length of postoperative opioid administration were also evaluated. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of neurological recovery and complications. Nevertheless, the MISS group showed a clear and significant improvement in terms of blood loss, operation time, and bed rest length, which is associated with a more rapid functional recovery and discharge from the hospital. Postoperative pain and the need for opioid administration were also significantly less pronounced in the MISS group. Results from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BM22 scales showed a more pronounced improvement in quality of life at follow-up in the MISS group. CONCLUSIONS: In the authors' opinion, MISS techniques should be considered the first choice for the treatment for patients with spinal metastasis and myelopathy. MISS is as safe and effective for spinal cord decompression and spine fixation as traditional surgery, and it also reduces the impact of surgery in critical patients. However, further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

In this study, we investigated whether treatment with palmitoylethanolamide and luteolin (PEA-LUT) leads to improvement in the quantitative or qualitative measures of olfactory dysfunction or relief from mental clouding in patients affected by long COVID. Patients with long COVID olfactory dysfunction were allocated to different groups based on the presence (“previously treated”) or absence (“naïve”) of prior exposure to olfactory training. Patients were then randomized to receive PEA-LUT alone or in combination with olfactory training. Olfactory function and memory were assessed at monthly intervals using self-report measures and quantitative thresholds. A total of 69 patients (43 women, 26 men) with an age average of 40.6 + 10.5 were recruited. PEA-LUT therapy was associated with a significant improvement in validated odor identification scores at the baseline versus each subsequent month; assessment at 3 months showed an average improvement of 10.7 + 2.6, CI 95%: 6–14 (p < 0.0001). The overall prevalence of parosmia was 79.7% (55 patients), with a significant improvement from the baseline to 3 months (p < 0.0001), namely in 31 patients from the Naïve 1 group (72%), 15 from the Naïve 2 group (93.7%), and 9 from the remaining group (90%). Overall, mental clouding was detected in 37.7% (26 subjects) of the cases, with a reduction in severity from the baseline to three months (p = 0.02), namely in 15 patients from the Naïve 1 group (34.8%), 7 from the Naïve 2 group (43.7%), and 4 from the remaining group (40%). Conclusions. In patients with long COVID and chronic olfactory loss, a regimen including oral PEA-LUT and olfactory training ameliorated olfactory dysfunction and memory. Further investigations are necessary to discern biomarkers, mechanisms, and long-term outcomes.