Eugene Y. Koh

Eugene Y. Koh

Auto-generated profile, based on publicly available information

Eugene Y. Koh


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

12Years (2015-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
13 August 2018 in Global Spine Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SKScott Koenig
Scott Koenig
Julio J. J. JaureguiJulio J. J. Jauregui
Julio J. J. Jauregui
MSMark Shasti
Mark Shasti
EJEhsan Jazini
Ehsan Jazini
EKEugene Y. Koh
Eugene Y. Koh
JJJulio Jauregui
Julio Jauregui
Study Design: Meta-analysis of evidence level I to IV studies. Objective: To compare decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion in the treatment of grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). Methods: Following established guidelines, we systematically reviewed 3 electronic databases to assess studies evaluating patients with grade I DS. We stratified all patients into 2 cohorts; the first cohort underwent a decompression-type surgery, and the second cohort underwent decompression plus fusion. We noted clinical outcomes, complications, reoperations, and surgical details such as blood loss. Descriptive statistics and random-effects models were used to determine the specified outcome metrics with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: In both cohorts, the pain (legs and lower back) significantly decreased and the physical component of the Short Form 36 showed better patient clinical outcomes. The decompression cohort had a 5.8% complication rate (95% CI = 1.7-2.1), and the decompression plus fusion cohort had an 8.3% complication rate (95% CI = 5.5-11.6). The reoperation rate was higher in the decompression-only cohort (8.5%; 95% CI = 2.9-17.0) compared with the decompression plus fusion cohort (4.9%; 95% CI = 2.5-7.9). Conclusions: There does not appear to be any advantage of one procedure over the other. Patients undergoing decompression alone tended to be older with a higher percentage of leg pain, whereas patients additionally undergoing fusion tended to be younger with more lower back pain. The decompression-only cohort had fewer complications but a higher revision rate.

1 December 2018 in Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MBMorenikeji Buraimoh
Morenikeji Buraimoh
ABAzam Basheer
Azam Basheer
KTKevin Taliaferro
Kevin Taliaferro
JSJonathan H. Shaw
Jonathan H. Shaw
SHSameah Haider
Sameah Haider
EKEugene Koh
Eugene Koh
Every day, spine surgeons call for instruments named after surgical pioneers. Few know the designers or the histories behind their instruments. In this paper the authors provide a historical perspective on the Penfield dissector, Leksell rongeur, Hibbs retractor, Woodson elevator, Kerrison rongeur, McCulloch retractor, Caspar pin retractor system, and Cloward handheld retractor, and a biographical review of their inventors. Historical data were obtained by searching the HathiTrust Digital Library, PubMed, Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google, and personal communications with relatives, colleagues, and foundations of the surgeon-designers. The authors found that the Penfield dissectors filled a need for delicate tools for manipulating the brain and that the Leksell rongeur increased surgical efficiency during war-related laminectomies. Hibbs’ retractor facilitated his spine fusion technique. Woodson was both a dentist and a physician whose instrument was adopted by spine surgeons. Kerrison rongeurs were developed in otology to decompress bone near the facial nerve. The McCulloch, Caspar, and Cloward retractors helped improve exposure during the emergence of new techniques, i.e., microdiscectomy and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. The histories behind these eponymous instruments remind us that innovation sometimes begins in other specialties and demonstrate the role of innovation in improving patient care.

1 June 2019 in International Journal of Spine Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ABAmit Bhandutia
Amit Bhandutia
LBLuke Brown
Luke Brown
ANAlysa Nash
Alysa Nash
IBIan Bussey
Ian Bussey
MSMark Shasti
Mark Shasti
DGDaniel Gelb
Daniel Gelb
Background Tandem spinal stenosis (TSS) is defined as simultaneous spinal stenosis in the cervical, thoracic, and/or lumbar regions and may present with both upper and lower motor neuron symptoms, neurogenic claudication, and gait disturbance. Current literature has focused mainly on the prevalence of TSS and treatment methods, while the incidence of delayed TSS diagnosis is not well defined. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of delayed TSS diagnosis at our institution and describe the clinical characteristics commonly observed in their particular presentation. Methods Following institutional review board approval, an institutional billing database review was performed for patients who underwent a spinal decompression procedure between 2006 and 2016. Thirty-three patients who underwent decompression on 2 separate spinal regions within 1 year were included for review. Patients with delayed diagnosis of TSS following the first surgery were differentiated from those with preoperative diagnosis of TSS. Results TSS requiring surgical decompression occurred in 33 patients, with the incidence being 2.06% in this cohort. Fifteen patients received a delayed diagnosis after the first surgical decompression (45%) and were found to have a longer interval between decompressions (7.6 ± 2.1 months versus 4.01 ± 3 months, P = .0004). Patients undergoing lumbar decompression as the initial procedure were more likely to have a delayed diagnosis of TSS (8 versus 2 patients, P = .0200). The most common presentation of delayed TSS was pain and myelopathic symptoms that persisted after decompressive surgery. Conclusion TSS should remain within the differential diagnosis for patients at initial presentation of spinal stenosis. In addition, suspicion of TSS should be heightened if preoperative symptoms fail to expectedly improve following decompression even if overt myelopathic signs are not present. Level of Evidence 4

15 June 2015 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SLShuo Liu
Shuo Liu
CNCorinne Niger
Corinne Niger
EKEugene Y. Koh
Eugene Y. Koh
JSJoseph P. Stains
Joseph P. Stains
Osteoarthritis is a joint-destructive disease that has no effective cure. Human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) could offer therapeutic benefit in the treatment of arthritic diseases by suppressing inflammation and permitting tissue regeneration, but first these cells must overcome the catabolic environment of the diseased joint. Likewise, gene therapy also offers therapeutic promise given its ability to directly modulate key catabolic factors that mediate joint deterioration, although it too has limitations. In the current study, we explore an approach that combines hMSCs and gene therapy. Specifically, we test the use of hMSC as a vehicle to deliver ADAMTS5 (an aggrecanase with a key role in osteoarthritis)-targeting siRNAs to SW982 synovial fibroblast-like cells via connexin43 containing gap junctions. Accordingly, we transduced hMSCs with ADAMTS5-targeting shRNA or non-targeted shRNA, and co-cultured them with synovial fibroblasts to allow delivery of siRNAs from hMSC to synovial fibroblasts. We found that co-culture of hMSCs-shRNA-ADAMTS5 and synovial fibroblasts reduced ADAMTS5 expression relative to co-culture of hMSCs-shRNA-control and synovial fibroblasts. Furthermore, ADAMTS5 was specifically reduced in the synovial fibroblasts populations as determined by fluorescence-activated cell sorting, suggesting transfer of the siRNA between cells. To test if Cx43-containing gap junctions are involved in the transfer of siRNA, we co-cultured hMSCs-shRNA-ADAMTS5 cells with synovial fibroblasts in which connexin43 was knocked down. Under these conditions, ADAMTS5 levels were not inhibited by co-culture, indicating that connexin43 mediates the delivery of siRNA from hMSCs to synovial fibroblasts. In total, our findings demonstrate that hMSCs can function as donor cells to host and deliver siRNAs to synovial fibroblasts via connexin43 gap junction in vitro. These data may have implications in the combination of hMSCs and gene therapy to treat diseases like osteoarthritis, in vivo.

19 November 2019 in Global Spine Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LBLouis J. Bivona
Louis J. Bivona
JCJael Camacho
Jael Camacho
FUFarooq Usmani
Farooq Usmani
ANAlysa Nash
Alysa Nash
JBJacob J. Bruckner
Jacob J. Bruckner
JJJulio Jauregui
Julio Jauregui
Study Design: Prospective cohort study. Objectives: To determine the prevalence of bacterial infection, with the use of a contaminant control, in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Methods: After institutional review board approval, patients undergoing elective ACDF were prospectively enrolled. Samples of the longus colli muscle and disc tissue were obtained. The tissue was then homogenized, gram stained, and cultured in both aerobic and anaerobic medium. Patients were classified into 4 groups depending on culture results. Demographic, preoperative, and postoperative factors were evaluated. Results: Ninety-six patients were enrolled, 41.7% were males with an average age of 54 ± 11 years and a body mass index of 29.7 ± 5.9 kg/m2. Seventeen patients (17.7%) were considered true positives, having a negative control and positive disc culture. Otherwise, no significant differences in culture positivity was found between groups of patients. However, our results show that patients were more likely to have both control and disc negative than being a true positive (odds ratio = 6.2, 95% confidence interval = 2.5-14.6). Propionibacterium acnes was the most commonly identified bacteria. Two patients with disc positive cultures returned to the operating room secondary to pseudarthrosis; however, age, body mass index, prior spine surgery or injection, postoperative infection, and reoperations were not associated with culture results. Conclusion: In our cohort, the prevalence of subclinical bacterial infection in patients undergoing ACDF was 17.7%. While our rates exclude patients with positive contaminant control, the possibility of contamination of disc cultures could not be entirely rejected. Overall, culture results did not have any influence on postoperative outcomes.

29 November 2019 in Surgical Neurology International
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MBMorenikeji Ayodele Buraimoh
Morenikeji Ayodele Buraimoh
ANAlysa Nash
Alysa Nash
BHBailey Howard
Bailey Howard
IYImran Yousaf
Imran Yousaf
EKEugene Koh
Eugene Koh
JJJulio Jauregui
Julio Jauregui
Background: Perioperative hypothermia is linked to multiple postoperative complications including increased surgical bleeding, surgical site infection, myocardial events, and increased length of hospital stay. The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of forced-air warming blanket position, above the shoulders versus under the trunk/legs, on intraoperative core body temperature and perioperative complications in elective lumbar spine surgery. Methods: After IRB approval, patients were enrolled in a consecutive fashion and randomized to either upper body (Group I) or lower body (Group II) groups. Primary outcomes were intraoperative body temperature, incidence of hypothermia, postoperative complications, and infection. Secondary outcomes included blood loss, operative time, and length of stay. Results: Seventy-four patients were included (Group I, 38; Group II, 36, mean age 60.7 years, 54% of male). Average patient follow-up was 69 ± 33.6 days in Group I and 67 ± 34.6 days in Group II. Average intraoperative body temperature was 35.7 in Group I and 35.8 in Group II (P = 0.27). Incidence of critical hypothermia (T < 35°C) was 18.4% and 11.1% in Groups I and II, respectively (P = 0.52). Incidence of mild hypothermia (T: 35°C–36°C) was 34.2% and 30.56% in Groups I and II, respectively (P = 0.81). Separately, pooled analysis comparing average body temperature and incidence infection demonstrated a relationship between mild hypothermia and infection (P = 0.03). Conclusion: Compared to using a lower body Bair Hugger under the patient, using standard upper body Bair Hugger may be associated with increased surgical site infection. Given equivalent body warming, we recommend using the lower body Bair Hugger to avoid infection.