Objective: Discrepancies in the definition of adductor canal block (ACB) lead to inconsistent results. To investigate the actual analgesic and motor-sparing effects of ACB by anatomically defining femoral triangle block (FTB), proximal ACB (p-ACB), and distal ACB (d-ACB), we re-classified the previously claimed ACB approaches according to the ultrasound findings or descriptions in the corresponding published articles. A meta-analysis with subsequent subgroup analyses based on these corrected results was performed to examine the true impact of ACB on its analgesic effect and motor function (quadriceps muscle strength or mobilization ability). An optimal ACB technique was also suggested based on an updated review of evidence and ultrasound anatomy. Materials and Methods: We systematically searched studies describing the use of ACB for knee surgery. Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched with the exclusion of non-English articles from inception to 28 February 2022. The motor-sparing and analgesic aspects in true ACB were evaluated using meta-analyses with subsequent subgroup analyses according to the corrected classification system. Results: The meta-analysis includes 19 randomized controlled trials. Compared with the femoral nerve block group, the quadriceps muscle strength (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.33, 95%-CI [0.01; 0.65]) and mobilization ability (SMD = −22.44, 95%-CI [−35.37; −9.51]) are more preserved in the mixed ACB group at 24 h after knee surgery. Compared with the true ACB group, the FTB group (SMD = 5.59, 95%-CI [3.44; 8.46]) has a significantly decreased mobilization ability at 24 h after knee surgery. Conclusion: By using the corrected classification system, we proved the motor-sparing effect of true ACB compared to FTB. According to the updated ultrasound anatomy, we suggested proximal ACB to be the analgesic technique of choice for knee surgery. Although a single-shot ACB is limited in duration, it remains the candidate of the analgesic standard for knee surgery on postoperative day 1 or 2 because it induces analgesia with less motor involvement in the era of multimodal analgesia. Furthermore, data from the corrected classification system may provide the basis for future research.

Background: Piriformis syndrome (PS) is a painful musculoskeletal condition characterized by a deep gluteal pain that may radiate to the posterior thigh and leg. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of ozone and BTX to lidocaine injection in treating piriformis syndrome that was resistant to medication and/or physical therapy. Study design: Between November 2018 and August 2019, we involved eighty-four subjects diagnosed with piriformis syndrome in a double-blinded, prospective, randomized comparative study to receive an ultrasound-guided injection of lidocaine (control group), botulinum toxin A, or local ozone (28 patients each group) in the belly of the piriformis muscle. Pain condition evaluated by the visual analog score (VAS) was used as a primary outcome, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) as a secondary outcome, before, at one month, two months, three months, and six months following the injection. Results: The majority (58.3%) of patients were male, while (41.7%) were female. At one month, a highly significant decrease occurred in VAS and ODI in the lidocaine and ozone groups compared to the botulinum toxin group (p < 0.001). At six months, there was a highly significant decrease in VAS and ODI in the botulinum toxin group compared to the lidocaine and ozone groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Botulinum toxin may assist in the medium- and long-term management of piriformis syndrome, while lidocaine injection and ozone therapy may help short-term treatment in patients not responding to conservative treatment and physiotherapy.

The coexistence of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and arteriovenous malformation (AVM) is rarely reported in the literature. According to the present literature, these GBM or glioma-related vascular malformations may present simultaneously in distinct regions of the brain or occur in the same area but at different times. So far, these distinct hypervascular glioblastomas have been described but are not classified as a separate pathological entities. Considering their heterogeneity and complexity, all the above mentioned cases remain challenging in diagnosis and therapeutic modality. Likewise, there is a paucity of data surrounding the simultaneous presentation of GBM with intracranial aneurysms. In the literature, the independent concurrence of these three intracranial lesions has never been reported. In this article, we present a case who suffered from intermittent headaches and dizziness initially and further radiographic examination revealed an internal carotid artery (ICA) aneurysm that occurred in the patient with coexisting GBM and AVM. Surgical intervention for tumor and AVM removal was performed smoothly. This patient underwent endovascular coiling for the ICA aneurysm 4 months postoperatively. In addition, we also review the current literature relating to this rare combination of medical conditions.

Objective: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery is a standard treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy or radiculopathy. Although the outcomes of ACDF are quite satisfactory, recurrent radiculopathy due to restenosis or adjacent degeneration cannot be completely avoided. We applied posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (PECF) as salvage surgery after ACDF in 11 patients (16 levels). Methods: We performed PECF in 11 patients (16 levels) in the past 5 years for recurrent radiculopathy after ACDF. The time until the development of recurrent radiculopathy ranged from 8 months to 3 years. Before surgery, all patients were treated with adequate medication and rehabilitation. The radiological tools used for the evaluation included x-ray examinations (with anteroposterior, lateral, flexion, extension, and bilateral oblique views), computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine.Results: Only one of the 11 patients did not respond immediately; however, that patient showed gradual recovery after decompression surgery in the following 6 months. Another patient showed good sensory function recovery, but transient motor palsy for 2 weeks. Otherwise, all the other patients showed motor or sensory function recovery, without symptom deterioration. None of these patients presented instability or mechanical pain after surgery or required repeat anterior surgery during follow-up (8 to 20 months; mean, 12 months).Conclusion: PECF, a minimally invasive posterior cervical surgical procedure, is efficient and effective as salvage surgery for restenosis after ACDF. This procedure prevents scarring along the trajectory and the need for longer fusion.