@article{WilsonAmblerLeeetal.2019,
  author    = {Wilson, Duncan and Ambler, Gareth and Lee, Keon-Joo and Lim, Jae-Sung and Shiozawa, Masayuki and Koga, Masatoshi and Li, Linxin and Lovelock, Caroline and Chabriat, Hugues and Hennerici, Michael and Wong, Yuen Kwun and Mak, Henry Ka Fung and Prats-S{\´a}nchez, Luis and Mart{\´i}nez-Dome{\~n}o, Alejandro and Inamura, Shigeru and Yoshifuji, Kazuhisa and Arsava, Ethem Murat and Horstmann, Solveig and Purrucker, Jan and Lam, Bonnie Yin Ka and Wong, Adrian and Kim, Young Dae and Song, Tae-Jin and Schrooten, Maarten and Lemmens, Robin and Eppinger, Sebastian and Gattringer, Thomas and Uysal, Ender and Tanriverdi, Zeynep and Bornstein, Natan M and Ben Assayag, Einor and Hallevi, Hen and Tanaka, Jun and Hara, Hideo and Coutts, Shelagh B and Hert, Lisa and Polymeris, Alexandros and Seiffge, David J and Lyrer, Philippe and Algra, Ale and Kappelle, Jaap and Salman, Rustam Al-Shahi and J{\"a}ger, Hans R and Lip, Gregory Y H and Mattle, Heinrich P and Panos, Leonidas D and Mas, Jean-Louis and Legrand, Laurence and Karayiannis, Christopher and Phan, Thanh and Gunkel, Sarah and Christ, Nicolas and Abrigo, Jill and Leung, Thomas and Chu, Winnie and Chappell, Francesca and Makin, Stephen and Hayden, Derek and Williams, David J and Kooi, M Eline and van Dam-Nolen, Dianne H K and Barbato, Carmen and Browning, Simone and Wiegertjes, Kim and Tuladhar, Anil M and Maaijwee, Noortje and Guevarra, Christine and Yatawara, Chathuri and Mendyk, Anne-Marie and Delmaire, Christine and K{\"o}hler, Sebastian and van Oostenbrugge, Robert and Zhou, Ying and Xu, Chao and Hilal, Saima and Gyanwali, Bibek and Chen, Christopher and Lou, Min and Staals, Julie and Bordet, R{\´e}gis and Kandiah, Nagaendran and de Leeuw, Frank-Erik and Simister, Robert and van der Lugt, Aad and Kelly, Peter J and Wardlaw, Joanna M and Soo, Yannie and Fluri, Felix and Srikanth, Velandai and Calvet, David and Jung, Simon and Kwa, Vincent I H and Engelter, Stefan T and Peters, Nils and Smith, Eric E and Yakushiji, Yusuke and Necioglu Orken, Dilek and Fazekas, Franz and Thijs, Vincent and Heo, Ji Hoe and Mok, Vincent and Veltkamp, Roland and Ay, Hakan and Imaizumi, Toshio and Gomez-Anson, Beatriz and Lau, Kui Kai and Jouvent, Eric and Rothwell, Peter M and Toyoda, Kazunori and Bae, Hee-Yoon and Marti-Fabregas, Joan and Werring, David J},
  title     = {Cerebral microbleeds and stroke risk after ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from cohort studies},
  series = {The Lancet Neurology},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {The Lancet Neurology},
  organization    = {Microbleeds International Collaborative Network},
  doi       = {10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30197-8},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-233710},
  pages     = {653-665},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Background Cerebral microbleeds are a neuroimaging biomarker of stroke risk. A crucial clinical question is whether cerebral microbleeds indicate patients with recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack in whom the rate of future intracranial haemorrhage is likely to exceed that of recurrent ischaemic stroke when treated with antithrombotic drugs. We therefore aimed to establish whether a large burden of cerebral microbleeds or particular anatomical patterns of cerebral microbleeds can identify ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack patients at higher absolute risk of intracranial haemorrhage than ischaemic stroke. Methods We did a pooled analysis of individual patient data from cohort studies in adults with recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Cohorts were eligible for inclusion if they prospectively recruited adult participants with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack; included at least 50 participants; collected data on stroke events over at least 3 months follow-up; used an appropriate MRI sequence that is sensitive to magnetic susceptibility; and documented the number and anatomical distribution of cerebral microbleeds reliably using consensus criteria and validated scales. Our prespecified primary outcomes were a composite of any symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage or ischaemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, and symptomatic ischaemic stroke. We registered this study with the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews, number CRD42016036602. Findings Between Jan 1, 1996, and Dec 1, 2018, we identified 344 studies. After exclusions for ineligibility or declined requests for inclusion, 20 322 patients from 38 cohorts (over 35 225 patient-years of follow-up; median 1·34 years [IQR 0·19-2·44]) were included in our analyses. The adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] comparing patients with cerebral microbleeds to those without was 1·35 (95\% CI 1·20-1·50) for the composite outcome of intracranial haemorrhage and ischaemic stroke; 2·45 (1·82-3·29) for intracranial haemorrhage and 1·23 (1·08-1·40) for ischaemic stroke. The aHR increased with increasing cerebral microbleed burden for intracranial haemorrhage but this effect was less marked for ischaemic stroke (for five or more cerebral microbleeds, aHR 4·55 [95\% CI 3·08-6·72] for intracranial haemorrhage vs 1·47 [1·19-1·80] for ischaemic stroke; for ten or more cerebral microbleeds, aHR 5·52 [3·36-9·05] vs 1·43 [1·07-1·91]; and for ≥20 cerebral microbleeds, aHR 8·61 [4·69-15·81] vs 1·86 [1·23-2·82]). However, irrespective of cerebral microbleed anatomical distribution or burden, the rate of ischaemic stroke exceeded that of intracranial haemorrhage (for ten or more cerebral microbleeds, 64 ischaemic strokes [95\% CI 48-84] per 1000 patient-years vs 27 intracranial haemorrhages [17-41] per 1000 patient-years; and for ≥20 cerebral microbleeds, 73 ischaemic strokes [46-108] per 1000 patient-years vs 39 intracranial haemorrhages [21-67] per 1000 patient-years). Interpretation In patients with recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, cerebral microbleeds are associated with a greater relative hazard (aHR) for subsequent intracranial haemorrhage than for ischaemic stroke, but the absolute risk of ischaemic stroke is higher than that of intracranial haemorrhage, regardless of cerebral microbleed presence, antomical distribution, or burden.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ConradsGrunzHuflageetal.2023,
  author    = {Conrads, Nora and Grunz, Jan-Peter and Huflage, Henner and Luetkens, Karsten Sebastian and Feldle, Philipp and Grunz, Katharina and K{\"o}hler, Stefan and Westermaier, Thomas},
  title     = {Accuracy of pedicle screw placement using neuronavigation based on intraoperative 3D rotational fluoroscopy in the thoracic and lumbar spine},
  series = {Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery},
  volume    = {143},
  journal   = {Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery},
  number    = {6},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00402-022-04514-1},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-324966},
  pages     = {3007-3013},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Introduction In spinal surgery, precise instrumentation is essential. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of navigated, O-arm-controlled screw positioning in thoracic and lumbar spine instabilities. Materials and methods Posterior instrumentation procedures between 2010 and 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Pedicle screws were placed using 3D rotational fluoroscopy and neuronavigation. Accuracy of screw placement was assessed using a 6-grade scoring system. In addition, screw length was analyzed in relation to the vertebral body diameter. Intra- and postoperative revision rates were recorded. Results Thoracic and lumbar spine surgery was performed in 285 patients. Of 1704 pedicle screws, 1621 (95.1\%) showed excellent positioning in 3D rotational fluoroscopy imaging. The lateral rim of either pedicle or vertebral body was protruded in 25 (1.5\%) and 28 screws (1.6\%), while the midline of the vertebral body was crossed in 8 screws (0.5\%). Furthermore, 11 screws each (0.6\%) fulfilled the criteria of full lateral and medial displacement. The median relative screw length was 92.6\%. Intraoperative revision resulted in excellent positioning in 58 of 71 screws. Follow-up surgery due to missed primary malposition had to be performed for two screws in the same patient. Postsurgical symptom relief was reported in 82.1\% of patients, whereas neurological deterioration occurred in 8.9\% of cases with neurological follow-up. Conclusions Combination of neuronavigation and 3D rotational fluoroscopy control ensures excellent accuracy in pedicle screw positioning. As misplaced screws can be detected reliably and revised intraoperatively, repeated surgery for screw malposition is rarely required.},
  language  = {en}
}