Asleep-awake-asleep regimen for epilepsy surgery: a prospective study of target-controlled infusion versus manually controlled infusion technique

Awake craniotomy in epilepsy surgery includes previously inoperable patients with preserved efficiency and safety

Introduction: Whilst awake craniotomy has been widely used historically in epilepsy surgery, the safety and efficacy of this approach in epilepsy surgery has been sparsely investigated in controlled studies. The objective of this study is to investigate the safety and efficacy of awake resection in epilepsy surgery and focuses on the possibility to widen surgical indications with awake surgery. Methods: Fifteen patients operated with awake epilepsy surgery were compared to 30 matched controls undergoing conventional/asleep epilepsy surgery. The groups were compared with regard to neurological complications, seizure control and location of resection. Results: Regarding seizure control, 86% of patients in the awake group reached Engel grade 1-2 compared to 73% in the control group, operated with conventional/asleep surgery, not a statistically significant difference. Neither was there a statistical significant difference regarding postoperative neurological complications. However, there was a significant difference in location of the resection when comparing the two groups. Of the 15 patients operated with awake intraoperative mapping, four had previously been considered as non-operable by epilepsy surgery centres, due to vicinity to eloquent brain regions and predicted risk of post-operative neurological deficits. Discussion: The results show that awake epilepsy surgery yields similar level of seizure control when compared to conventional asleep surgery, with maintained safety in regard to neurological complications. Furthermore, the results indicate that awake craniotomy in epilepsy surgery is feasible and possible in patients otherwise regarded as inoperable with epileptigenic zone in proximity to eloquent brain structures.

Effect of remimazolam vs propofol on emergence from general anesthesia in patients undergoing cerebral endovascular procedures: A randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the time to emergence from general anesthesia with remimazolam versus propofol in patients undergoing cerebral endovascular procedures.

DESIGN

A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

An academic hospital.

PATIENTS

Adult patients scheduled for cerebral endovascular procedures.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to undergo surgery under general anesthesia with remimazolam (0.1 mg kg-1 for induction and 0.3-0.7 mg kg-1 h-1 for maintenance) or propofol (1-1.5 mg kg-1 for induction and 4-10 mg kg-1 h-1 for maintenance).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the time to emergence from anesthesia. The non-inferiority margin was -2.55 min in group difference. Major secondary outcomes included hypotension during induction, incidence of postoperative delirium and Modified Rankin Scale (mRs) at 30 days and 90 days after surgery.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 142 randomized patients, 129 completed the trial. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the mean time to emergence from anesthesia was 16.1 [10.4] min in the remimazolam group vs. 19.0 [11.2] min in the propofol group. The group difference was -2.9 min [95% CI -6.5, 0.7] (P = 0.003 for non-inferiority). The remimazolam group had lower rate of hypotension during induction (11.3% vs 25.4%, P = 0.03) and use of vasopressors during surgery (29.6% vs 62.0%, P < 0.001). The two groups did not differ in postoperative delirium and mRs at 30 and 90 days after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing cerebral endovascular procedures, remimazolam did not increase the time from anesthesia vs propofol.

Effect of differences in extubation timing on postoperative pneumonia following meningioma resection: a retrospective cohort study

Background

This study was designed to examine extubation time and to determine its association with postoperative pneumonia (POP) after meningioma resection.

Methods

We studied extubation time for 598 patients undergoing meningioma resection from January 2016 to December 2020. Extubation time was analysed as a categorical variable and patients were grouped into extubation within 21 minutes, 21–35 minutes and ≥ 35 minutes. Our primary outcome represented the incidence of POP. The association between extubation time and POP was assessed using multivariable logistic regression mixed-effects models which adjusted for confounders previously reported. Propensity score matching (PSM) was also performed at a ratio of 1:1 to minimize potential bias.

Results

Among 598 patients (mean age 56.1 ± 10.7 years, 75.8% female), the mean extubation time was 32.4 minutes. Extubation was performed within 21 minutes (32.4%), 21–35 minutes (31.2%) and ≥ 35 minutes (36.4%), respectively, after surgery. Older patients (mean age 57.8 years) were prone to delayed extubation (≥ 35 min) in the operating room, and more inclined to perioperative fluid infusion. When extubation time was analysed as a continuous variable, there was a U-shaped relation of extubation time with POP (P for nonlinearity = 0.044). After adjustment for confounders, extubation ≥35 minutes was associated with POP (odds ratio [OR], 2.73 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36 ~ 5.47). Additionally, the results after PSM were consistent with those before matching.

Conclusions

Delayed extubation after meningioma resection is associated with increased pneumonia incidence. Therefore, extubation should be performed as early as safely possible in the operation room.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01836-w.

An Update of Neuroanesthesia for Intraoperative Brain Mapping Craniotomy

The perioperative multidisciplinary team approach has probably been best exemplified by the care of awake craniotomy patients. Advancement in anesthesia and meticulous perioperative care has supported the safety and complexity of the surgical and mapping efforts in glioma resection. The discussions in this review will emphasize on anesthetic and perioperative management strategies to prevent complications and minimize their effects if they occur, including current practice guidelines in anesthesia, updates on the applications of anesthetic medications, and emerging devices. Planning the anesthetic and perioperative management is based on understanding the pharmacology of the medications, the goals of different stages of the surgery and mapping, and anticipating potential problems.

Addition of low-dose sufentanil to ropivacaine for reducing shivering and visceral traction pain during cesarean section

Objective

To investigate the efficacy of low-dose sufentanil for preventing shivering and visceral traction pain during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled study. A total of 112 full-term parturients who underwent elective caesarean delivery were randomly divided into two groups. Group R received 0.75% isobaric ropivacaine intrathecally and group RS received 0.75% isobaric ropivacaine plus 5 µg sufentanil intrathecally.

Results

There were no significant differences in the maximum sensory block time, motor block time, duration of the surgery, and heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and blood oxygen saturation before and 1, 5, and 10 minutes after spinal anesthesia, and at the end of the surgery between the two groups. Shivering was significantly more common in group R (n = 30) than in group RS (n = 8). The incidence of visceral traction pain in group R (46.43%) was significantly higher than that in group RS (14.29%). There was no significant difference in the newborns’ Apgar scores between the groups.

Conclusion

Adding low-dose sufentanil to ropivacaine can significantly reduce the incidence of shivering and visceral traction pain after spinal anesthesia.

Surgery for epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review, published in 2015.Focal epilepsies are caused by a malfunction of nerve cells localised in one part of one cerebral hemisphere. In studies, estimates of the number of individuals with focal epilepsy who do not become seizure-free despite optimal drug therapy vary between at least 20% and up to 70%. If the epileptogenic zone can be located, surgical resection offers the chance of a cure with a corresponding increase in quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective is to assess the overall outcome of epilepsy surgery according to evidence from randomised controlled trials.Secondary objectives are to assess the overall outcome of epilepsy surgery according to non-randomised evidence, and to identify the factors that correlate with remission of seizures postoperatively.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 11 March 2019: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to March 08, 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included at least 30 participants in a well-defined population (age, sex, seizure type/frequency, duration of epilepsy, aetiology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnosis, surgical findings), with an MRI performed in at least 90% of cases and an expected duration of follow-up of at least one year, and reporting an outcome related to postoperative seizure control. Cohort studies or case series were included in the previous version of this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three groups of two review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed study quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. Outcomes were proportions of participants achieving a good outcome according to the presence or absence of each prognostic factor of interest. We intended to combine data with risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 182 studies with a total of 16,855 included participants investigating outcomes of surgery for epilepsy. Nine studies were RCTs (including two that randomised participants to surgery or medical treatment (99 participants included in the two trials received medical treatment)). Risk of bias in these RCTs was unclear or high. Most of the remaining 173 non-randomised studies followed a retrospective design. We assessed study quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool and determined that most studies provided moderate or weak evidence. For 29 studies reporting multivariate analyses, we used the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and determined that very few studies were at low risk of bias across domains.In terms of freedom from seizures, two RCTs found surgery (n = 97) to be superior to medical treatment (n = 99); four found no statistically significant differences between anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) with or without corpus callosotomy (n = 60), between subtemporal or transsylvian approach to selective amygdalohippocampectomy (SAH) (n = 47); between ATL, SAH and parahippocampectomy (n = 43) or between 2.5 cm and 3.5 cm ATL resection (n = 207). One RCT found total hippocampectomy to be superior to partial hippocampectomy (n = 70) and one found ATL to be superior to stereotactic radiosurgery (n = 58); and another provided data to show that for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, no significant differences in seizure outcomes were evident between those treated with resection of the epileptogenic zone and those treated with resection of the epileptogenic zone plus corpus callosotomy (n = 43). We judged evidence from the nine RCTs to be of moderate to very low quality due to lack of information reported about the randomised trial design and the restricted study populations.Of the 16,756 participants included in this review who underwent a surgical procedure, 10,696 (64%) achieved a good outcome from surgery; this ranged across studies from 13.5% to 92.5%. Overall, we found the quality of data in relation to recording of adverse events to be very poor.In total, 120 studies examined between one and eight prognostic factors in univariate analysis. We found the following prognostic factors to be associated with a better post-surgical seizure outcome: abnormal pre-operative MRI, no use of intracranial monitoring, complete surgical resection, presence of mesial temporal sclerosis, concordance of pre-operative MRI and electroencephalography, history of febrile seizures, absence of focal cortical dysplasia/malformation of cortical development, presence of tumour, right-sided resection, and presence of unilateral interictal spikes. We found no evidence that history of head injury, presence of encephalomalacia, presence of vascular malformation, and presence of postoperative discharges were prognostic factors of outcome.Twenty-nine studies reported multi-variable models of prognostic factors, and showed that the direction of association of factors with outcomes was generally the same as that found in univariate analyses.We observed variability in many of our analyses, likely due to small study sizes with unbalanced group sizes and variation in the definition of seizure outcome, the definition of prognostic factors, and the influence of the site of surgery AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Study design issues and limited information presented in the included studies mean that our results provide limited evidence to aid patient selection for surgery and prediction of likely surgical outcomes. Future research should be of high quality, follow a prospective design, be appropriately powered, and focus on specific issues related to diagnostic tools, the site-specific surgical approach, and other issues such as extent of resection. Researchers should investigate prognostic factors related to the outcome of surgery via multi-variable statistical regression modelling, where variables are selected for modelling according to clinical relevance, and all numerical results of the prognostic models are fully reported. Journal editors should not accept papers for which study authors did not record adverse events from a medical intervention. Researchers have achieved improvements in cancer care over the past three to four decades by answering well-defined questions through the conduct of focused RCTs in a step-wise fashion. The same approach to surgery for epilepsy is required.