Background: Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is currently used instead of fusion to preserve cervical spine motion. Cervical implant subsidence is a potential complication after CDA. Methods: Radiological measurements were recorded via patient anteroposterior and lateral radiographs in the neutral position. Subsidence was defined as a decrease of 3 mm or more in functional spinal unit height (FSUH) from which was measured on a post-operative (OP) radiograph. Results: This study included 104 patients who underwent 153 CDA levels with the Bryan Disc. Approximately one-quarter of the implants (22.9%) showed subsidence. Binary logistic regression analysis indicated that pre-OP mean disc height (DH) was identified as an independent risk factor for subsidence in multivariate analysis (0.151, 95% Confidence Interval 0–0.073, p = 0.018). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (area under the curve = 0.852, sensitivity 84.7%, specificity 77.1%) revealed a cut-off value of 4.48 mm for pre-OP Mean-DH in the risk for implant subsidence. Conclusions: In this study, the subsidence rate significantly increased when the implants were oversized beyond a pre-OP Mean-DH of approximately >4 mm. Moreover, the implant subsidence incidence was higher than that reported in previous studies. This is possibly due to endplate over-preparation or disc space over-distraction during placement at the same height as the Bryan Disc (8.5 mm).

Background/Aim: Subdural hematoma (SDH), a critical brain condition, significantly affects the elderly, making traditional surgeries risky due to their length and potential for blood loss. Endoscope-assisted evacuation offers a safer, less invasive alternative by reducing operation time and minimizing damage, providing an effective solution for older patients. This study evaluated six patients treated with endoscopic evacuation for different stages of SDH from August 2019 to July 2023. Patients and Methods: Selection criteria were based on altered consciousness, lack of severe brain contusion, SDH thickness over 1 cm, or midline shift over 0.5 cm. The technique used a burr hole and rigid lens endoscope for hematoma removal, focusing on shorter surgery times and better outcomes. Results: Patients aged between 63 to 84 years showed no surgical fatalities, with all recovering well by discharge. Hematoma clearance rates were 76.9% at three days, improving to 96.8% after one month. Conclusion: Endoscope-assisted evacuation is a safe, efficient treatment for elderly patients with various stages of SDH, offering a less invasive option with potential for better outcomes. It supports the trend towards minimally invasive neurosurgery, with further research needed to optimize patient selection and understand long-term benefits.

Background: Far-Out Syndrome at the lumbosacral junction is caused by extraforaminal compression of the L5 nerve root, frequently involving the lumbosacral ligament (LSL). Conventional piecemeal resection of the LSL may increase the risk of postoperative dysesthesia due to repeated manipulation near the L5 dorsal root ganglion (DRG). This study introduces a novel unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique for en bloc resection of the LSL. Methods: The technique is based on an osteoclastic release strategy in which the bony attachments of the LSL, including the inferior aspect of the L5 transverse process and the sacral ala, are drilled and released before addressing the ligament itself. This maneuver elevates the LSL away from the underlying L5 DRG and achieves en bloc removal under direct endoscopic visualization. Results: En bloc resection may improve visualization within the narrow extraforaminal corridor and may reduce direct mechanical manipulation of the L5 DRG, which could potentially translate into reduced postoperative dysesthesia. The presented technique enabled effective decompression without repeated instrument insertion beneath the ligament. Conclusions: UBE-assisted en bloc resection of the LSL is a feasible and potentially neuroprotective technique for treating lumbosacral extraforaminal lesions.

Background and Objective: Romosozumab carries a warning for potential severe cardiovascular events, while denosumab is widely used for osteoporosis but requires safety considerations in advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). Given the limited direct real-world evidence comparing these treatments, in this study, we aimed to compare the cardiovascular and survival outcomes associated with romosozumab versus denosumab in adults with CKD. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study, we utilized de-identified electronic health records from the TriNetX Global Collaborative Network, where eligible participants were adults aged 40 to 90 years with CKD who initiated either romosozumab or denosumab. Patients with bone/bone marrow malignancies or recent acute cardiovascular events were excluded. Following 1:1 propensity score matching based on demographics, diagnoses, medications, and laboratory characteristics, patients were followed for up to 1095 days. The primary outcome was a composite cardiovascular measure (all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular event), while secondary outcomes included the individual components of the composite outcome and acute heart failure. Outcomes were evaluated using fixed-window cumulative risks, risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios, and hazard-ratio estimates. Results: After 1:1 propensity score matching, 1201 patients remained in each cohort; the mean age was 74.1 years in the romosozumab cohort and 74.2 years in the denosumab cohort, and 94.9% and 93.8%, respectively, were women. Romosozumab was associated with lower 1095-day cumulative risk of the composite cardiovascular outcome than denosumab (12.6% vs. 18.8%; RR, 0.668 [95% CI, 0.553–0.808]), as well as lower cumulative risk of cerebrovascular event (5.0% vs. 7.0%; RR, 0.714 [95% CI, 0.518–0.985]), all-cause mortality (6.6% vs. 9.5%; RR, 0.693 [95% CI, 0.526–0.913]), acute myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 6.2%; RR, 0.613 [95% CI, 0.429–0.878]), and heart failure (2.7% vs. 6.1%; RR, 0.438 [95% CI, 0.292–0.659]). Conclusions: In this propensity score-matched EHR cohort of adults with CKD, cardiovascular and survival estimates associated with romosozumab versus denosumab varied by follow-up window and analytic approach. Although 1095-day fixed-window cumulative risks were lower in the romosozumab cohort, corresponding time-to-event estimates were neutral or directionally inconsistent. These findings should not be interpreted as evidence of cardioprotection or causal superiority but rather as showing no clear and consistent excess cardiovascular risk signal for romosozumab compared with denosumab.