Intervenciones neuroquirúrgicas en Cataluña. Resultados de una encuesta anestésica durante 2003

National survey on postoperative care and treatment circuits in neurosurgery

INTRODUCTION

The analysis of surgical processes should be a standard of health systems. We describe the circuit of care and postoperative treatment for neurosurgical interventions in the centres of our country.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From June to October 2014, a survey dealing with perioperative treatments and postoperative circuits after neurosurgical procedures was sent to the chiefs of Anaesthesiology of 73 Spanish hospitals with neurosurgery and members of the Neuroscience Section of SEDAR.

RESULTS

We obtained 45 responses from 30 centres (41.09%). Sixty percent of anaesthesiologists perform preventive locoregional analgesic treatment. Pain intensity is systematically assessed by 78%. Paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and morphine combinations are the most commonly used. A percentage of 51.1 are aware of the incidence of postoperative nausea after craniotomy and 86.7% consider multimodal prophylaxis to be necessary. Dexamethasone is given as antiemetic (88.9%) and/or anti-oedema treatment (68.9%). A percentage of 44.4 of anaesthesiologists routinely administer anticonvulsive prophylaxis in patients with supratentorial tumours (levetiracetam, 88.9%), and 73.3% of anaesthesiologists have postoperative surveillance protocols. The anaesthesiologist (73.3%) decides the patient's destination, which is usually ICU (83.3%) or PACU (50%). Postoperative neurological monitoring varied according to the type of intervention, although strength and sensitivity were explored in between 70-80%.

CONCLUSIONS

There is great variability in the responses, probably attributable to the absence of guidelines, different structures and hospital equipment, type of surgery and qualified personnel. We need consensual protocols to standardize the treatment and the degree of monitoring needed during the postoperative period.

[Survey of anesthesiologists' practice in treating spontaneous aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage]

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the participation of Spanish anesthesiology departments in the management of patients hospitalized for spontaneous aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Chiefs of anesthesiology departments of hospitals listed in the Spanish National Catalog of Hospitals of the Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs were sent a questionnaire with 30 items covering protocols for the management of patients with spontaneous aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Items asked about the participation of anesthesiologists during both admission and the perioperative period.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was sent to 132 hospitals, of which 18 (13.6%) responded. Forty-six percent of anesthesiology departments do not participate in the initial resuscitation. Only 4 reported having a protocol for treating these patients. The initial diagnosis was reportedly made by cranial computed tomography in all cases. Endovascular treatment was the most common procedure reported (66%) and it was given within the first 48 hours (66%). Basic monitoring was used more than nervous system monitoring. Total intravenous anesthesia was used for craniotomy in 53% of the hospitals and for endovascular treatment in 64%. Complications reported most often were vasospasm (100%) and hydrocephalus (69%).

CONCLUSIONS

Even though few questionnaires were returned, the results reveal scarce use of protocols for the treatment of spontaneous aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage by anesthesiologists. It was also evident that the participation of anesthesiology department staff in the treatment of this condition takes place almost exclusively in the intraoperative period and that the use of nervous system monitoring is scarce. Endovascular treatment is increasing in our practice settings.