Role of anaesthesia in neurosurgical enhanced recovery programmes

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for Craniotomies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The efficacy of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in neurosurgery has not yet been established. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the effects of ERAS protocols and conventional perioperative care on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing craniotomy. The primary outcome was postoperative length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain visual analog pain scores, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative complications, all-cause reoperation, readmission after discharge, and mortality. A literature search up to August 10, 2023, was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Five studies, including 871 patients, were identified for inclusion in this review. Compared with conventional perioperative care, ERAS protocols reduced the length of postoperative hospital stay (difference of medians, -1.52 days; 95% CI: -2.55 to -0.49); there was high heterogeneity across studies (I2, 74%). ERAS protocols were also associated with a lower risk of PONV (relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.69-0.90; I2, 99%) and postoperative pain with a visual analog scale score ≥4 at postoperative day 1 (relative risk, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.28-0.49; I2, 14%). Other outcomes, including postoperative complications, did not differ between ERAS and conventional care groups. ERAS protocols may be superior to conventional perioperative care in craniotomy patients in terms of lower length of hospital stay, lower incidence of PONV, and improved postoperative pain scores. Further randomized trials are required to identify the impact of ERAS protocols on the quality of recovery after craniotomy.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for craniotomies in the treatment of brain tumors: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative complications after craniotomy for brain tumors include pain, nausea/vomiting, and infection. A standardized enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is not widely accepted for this common neurosurgical procedure. Few studies have explored its application.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases was performed between January 1992 and March 2023. Original studies that implemented an ERAS protocol for patients that underwent craniotomy for brain tumors were included. The following variables were evaluated: hospital length of stay (LOS), postoperative pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis, non-opioid analgesia, and quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

Twelve studies with a total of 1309 patients met inclusion criteria, including ten randomized controlled trials, one nonrandomized controlled trial, and one quality control study. Most frequently assessed metrics included hospital LOS, PONV prophylaxis, and non-opioid analgesia. A significant reduction in postoperative LOS was observed in 7 studies with ERAS or ERAS components. ERAS was significantly associated with pain reduction on the visual analog scale and verbal numerical rating scale (n=8). Non-opioid analgesia in ERAS improved postoperative pain control (n=4) and decreased the duration of pain (n=1). Three of six studies found no difference in PONV in ERAS vs. control. No studies reported an increase in postoperative complications using ERAS vs. control. One study showed greater patient satisfaction at 30-day follow-up with improved QOL.

CONCLUSION

Implementing ERAS protocol may enhance outcomes and quality of life in patients with moderate evidence for improved recovery in those undergoing craniotomy for brain tumors.

Before the Knife: A Detailed Step-by-Step Description of an Optimized Semi-Sitting Position in Posterior Fossa Surgery

BACKGROUND

In an ample armamentarium in neurosurgery, the semi-sitting position has produced debate regarding its benefits and risks. Although the position is apparently intuitive, many have abandoned its use since its initial inception, because of reported complexity and potential complications, leading to impracticality. However, through standardization, it has been shown not only to be safe but to carry with it many advantages, including less risk of secondary neurovascular injuries and better visualization of the surgical field. As with any surgical technical nuance, the semi-sitting position has advantages and disadvantages that must be weighed before the decision is made to adopt it or not, not only in a case-by-case scenario but also from a departmental standpoint. As we attempt to show, the advantages from a standardized approach for the semi-sitting position in experienced institutions may be more than sufficient to significantly outweigh the disadvantages, making it the preferable option for most, although not all, posterior fossa surgical interventions.

METHODS

In the present study, we aim to elaborate a straightforward narrative of the steps before incision, in an attempt to simplify the complexity of the position, alleviating its disadvantages and exponentially concentrating on its benefits. In nearly 100 steps, we carefully describe the points that culminate with the skin incision, initiating the intraoperative part of the procedure. Each step, therefore, is detailed in full, not in an effort to create a strict manual of the semi-sitting position but rather to facilitate understanding and put the technique into effect in a real-life scenario, thus simplifying what some depict as complex and time consuming.

CONCLUSIONS

Although several of the steps described are also relevant and integral parts of other surgical positioning, we intend to create a protocol, in a stepwise fashion, to allow facilitated following, to be easily implemented in departments with different levels of experience. The steps comprise nursing care through to electrophysiologic and anesthesiologic approaches, along with neurosurgical cooperation, making it a team approach, not only to avoid position-related complications but also to optimize preoperative standardization, constructing a safe, efficient, and patient-centered scenario, to set the best possible stage for the next step: the intraoperative part of the intervention.

How to Study the Brain While Anesthetizing It?! A Scoping Review on Running Neuroanesthesiologic Studies and Trials That Include Neurosurgical Patients

This scoping review addresses the challenges of neuroanesthesiologic research: the population, the methods/treatment/exposure, and the outcome/results. These challenges are put into the context of a future research agenda for peri-/intraoperative anesthetic management, neurocritical care, and applied neurosciences. Finally, the opportunities of adaptive trial design in neuroanesthesiologic research are discussed.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for Cranial Tumor Resection: A Review

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols describe a standardized method of preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative care to enhance outcomes and minimize complication risks surrounding elective surgical intervention. A growing body of evidence is being generated as we learn to apply principles of ERAS standardization to neurosurgical patients. First applied in spinal surgery, ERAS protocols have been extended to cranial neuro-oncological procedures. This review synthesizes recent findings to generate evidence-based guidelines to manage neurosurgical oncology patients with standardized systems and assess ability of these systems to coordinate multidisciplinary, patient-centric care efforts. Furthermore, we highlight the potential utility of multimedia, app-based communication platforms to facilitate patient education, autonomy, and team communication within each of the three settings.