The central focus of the 2023 annual gathering of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons in Los Angeles revolved around the concept of neurosurgeons as advocates. Beyond their roles in clinical practice and patient care, neurosurgeons frequently unite in their commitment to advocacy. This shared dedication empowers them to thrive in areas such as innovation, teaching, advanced research, and comprehensive training to shape the future of the neurosurgical field. The substantial outcome of this approach is the establishment of an environment dedicated to delivering the utmost quality of care to neurosurgery patients.
THE 2023 PRESIDENTAL ADDRESS. Celebrating advocacy: neurosurgeons as advocates
Ann Stroink
Applications of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols for unruptured anterior circulation aneurysms in tertiary-level healthcare institutions: a national study
Fatih Yakar, Batuhan Bakirarar, Çağrı Elbir, Emrah Egemen, Şahin Hanalioğlu, Ümit Akın Dere, Serkan Civlan, Çağhan Tönge, Barış Albuz, Mehmet Erdal Coşkun, and Mehmet Erhan Türkoğlu
OBJECTIVE
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are standardized perioperative care that reduce patients’ stress response during hospitalization and improve hospitalization time, complication rates, costs, and readmission rates. This study aimed to investigate the application rate of protocols for elective craniotomy in the surgery of unruptured anterior circulation aneurysms (AnCAs) at tertiary-level healthcare (TLH) institutions in Türkiye and its effect on the outcomes of the patients.
METHODS
An electronic survey was sent to all Turkish TLH institutions (n = 127) between May and June 2023. The number of institutions participating in the survey was 38 (30%). The institutions were subdivided according to three main factors: institution type (university hospital [UH] vs training and research hospital [TRH]), annual case volume (low [≤ 20 aneurysms] vs high [> 20 aneurysms]), and institution accreditation status (accredited vs nonaccredited).
RESULTS
Overall, 55.3% (n = 21) of the institutions participating in the study were UHs. The rates of those that were accredited and had a high case volume were 55.3% (n = 21) and 31.6% (n = 12), respectively. It was determined that the accredited clinics applied preoperative protocols at a higher rate (p = 0.050), and the length of stay in the postoperative period was shorter in the clinics that used the intraoperative protocols (p = 0.014).
CONCLUSIONS
The length of stay in the postoperative period is lower in TLH institutions in Türkiye that highly implement intraoperative protocols. Furthermore, this is the first study in the literature evaluating protocols for elective craniotomy in unruptured AnCAs.
C2 versus C3 or C4 as the upper instrumented vertebra for long-segment cervical fusions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Presented at the 2023 AANS/CNS Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves
Esteban Quiceno, Amna Hussein, Annie Pico, Ebtesam Abdulla, Isabel L. Bauer, Kristin Nosova, Jose Orenday-Barraza, Alexandros Moniakis, Monis Ahmed Khan, Michael Prim, and Ali A. Baaj
OBJECTIVE
Selecting C2 versus C3 or C4 (i.e., C3/C4) as the rostral anchoring level in long-segment cervical fusions is a common clinical conundrum. The data regarding proximal failure in long constructs of the cervical spine is scarce. The objective of this study was to systematically review the published literature and perform a meta-analysis of the incidence for proximal adjacent-segment disease (ASD) in the context of long cervical fusions and cervicothoracic fusions ending in C2 versus those ending in the subaxial spine (C3 or C4).
METHODS
Using the PRISMA guidelines, the authors performed a search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase/Ovid, and Cochrane Central databases to identify all full-text articles in the English-language literature with the following inclusion criteria: 1) studies including patients with the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) at C2 versus C3/C4; 2) patients undergoing ≥ 3-level posterior cervical fusion; and 3) indication for surgery of degenerative disc disease, cervical spondylotic myelopathy, or cervical deformity. Studies that were not published in the English language, case reports, review articles, letters to the editor, and meeting abstracts were excluded. A meta-analysis was conducted using a fixed-effects model when I2 values were below 70%. Conversely, when I2 values were equal to or greater than 70%, a random-effects model was used. A funnel plot was used to assess the presence of publication bias.
RESULTS
Seven studies consisting of 1215 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There were 403 (32.8%) patients in the C2 UIV group and 812 (67.2%) patients in the C3/C4 UIV group. When the 7 studies were analyzed, the overall rate of reoperation was comparable between the C2 (9.2%) and C3/C4 (9.4%) UIV groups (p = 0.93) but the rate of surgical ASD due to proximal pathology was 1.2% and 3%, respectively (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15–0.86; p = 0.02). When comparing between groups, no statistical difference was found regarding the rate of reoperation due to distal pathology or surgical infection.
CONCLUSIONS
Long-segment cervical or cervicothoracic constructs that anchor into C2 may have similar complication rates but lower revision rates for proximal ASD than constructs that anchor into the subaxial spine.
The critical need to address gender inequities in resident feedback and ensure equitable education for all trainees in neurosurgical training
Megan M. J. Bauman, Jenna H. Meyer, Rushna P. Ali, Michelle J. Clarke, and Maria Peris Celda
Development and implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Cranial Surgery pathway following supratentorial tumor resection at a tertiary care center
Hammad A. Khan, Travis C. Hill, Carter M. Suryadevara, Camiren C. Carter, Alexander N. Eremiev, Akshay V. Save, John G. Golfinos, and Donato Pacione
OBJECTIVE
Controlling length of stay (LOS) reduces rates of nosocomial infections and falls, facilitates earlier return to daily activities, and decreases strain on the healthcare system. Complications following supratentorial tumor resection present early in the postoperative period, thereby enhancing the prospect of safe, early discharge. Here, the authors describe their initial experience with the development and implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Cranial Surgery (ERACS) pathway following resection of supratentorial tumors in select patients.
METHODS
This was a nonrandomized, ambispective quality improvement study of patients undergoing elective craniotomy for supratentorial tumor resection at New York University Langone Health between November 17, 2020, and May 19, 2022. Eligible patients were prospectively enrolled in either the ERACS pathway or the standard pathway. These prospective cohorts were compared to a retrospective cohort of patients who met eligibility criteria for the pathway. Patients in the ERACS pathway cohort were targeted for discharge on postoperative day 2. The primary outcome metric was hospital LOS. Secondary outcome metrics included duration of intensive care unit (ICU) care and rates of 30-day emergency department visits, readmissions, and complications.
RESULTS
Over the study period, 188 of 317 patients (59.3%) who underwent supratentorial tumor resection met inclusion criteria for ERACS pathway enrollment. Sixty-three patients were enrolled in the ERACS pathway, and 125 patients completed the standard pathway. The historical cohort consisted of 332 patients who would have been eligible for ERACS enrollment. Patients in the ERACS pathway cohort had a median LOS of 1.93 days compared with 2.92 and 2.88 days for patients in the standard pathway and historical cohort, respectively (p < 0.001). There was a significant reduction in ICU utilization in ERACS pathway patients (16.0 ± 6.53 vs 29.5 ± 53.0 vs 21.8 ± 18.2 hours, p = 0.005). There were no differences in the rates of 30-day emergency department visits (12.7% vs 9.6% vs 10.9%, p = 0.809) and readmissions (4.8% vs 4.0% vs 7.8%, p = 0.279) between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients in the ERACS pathway cohort experienced reduced LOS and ICU utilization, with similar rates of adverse outcomes compared to standard pathway patients. The authors’ initial experience suggests that an accelerated recovery pathway can be safely implemented following supratentorial tumor resection in select patients.
Does diabetes affect outcome or reoperation rate after lumbar decompression or arthrodesis? A matched analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database data set
Presented at the 2023 AANS/CNS Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves
James Mooney, Karim Rizwan Nathani, Daniel Zeitouni, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Michael Y. Wang, Domagoj Coric, Andrew K. Chan, Daniel C. Lu, Brandon A. Sherrod, Oren N. Gottfried, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Khoi D. Than, Jacob L. Goldberg, Ibrahim Hussain, Michael S. Virk, Nitin Agarwal, Steven D. Glassman, Mark E. Shaffrey, Paul Park, Kevin T. Foley, Dean Chou, Jonathan R. Slotkin, Luis M. Tumialán, Cheerag D. Upadhyaya, Eric A. Potts, Kai-Ming G. Fu, Regis W. Haid, John J. Knightly, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Erica F. Bisson, Anthony L. Asher, and Mohamad Bydon
OBJECTIVE
Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a known risk factor for postsurgical and systemic complications after lumbar spinal surgery. Smaller studies have also demonstrated diminished improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), with increased reoperation and readmission rates after lumbar surgery in patients with DM. The authors aimed to examine longer-term PROs in patients with DM undergoing lumbar decompression and/or arthrodesis for degenerative pathology.
METHODS
The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients undergoing elective lumbar decompression and/or arthrodesis for degenerative pathology. Patients were grouped into DM and non-DM groups and optimally matched in a 1:1 ratio on 31 baseline variables, including the number of operated levels. Outcomes of interest were readmissions and reoperations at 30 and 90 days after surgery in addition to improvements in Oswestry Disability Index, back pain, and leg pain scores and quality-adjusted life-years at 90 days after surgery.
RESULTS
The matched decompression cohort comprised 7836 patients (3236 [41.3] females) with a mean age of 63.5 ± 12.6 years, and the matched arthrodesis cohort comprised 7336 patients (3907 [53.3%] females) with a mean age of 64.8 ± 10.3 years. In patients undergoing lumbar decompression, no significant differences in nonroutine discharge, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, reoperations, and PROs were observed. In patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis, nonroutine discharge (15.7% vs 13.4%, p < 0.01), LOS (3.2 ± 2.0 vs 3.0 ± 3.5 days, p < 0.01), 30-day (6.5% vs 4.4%, p < 0.01) and 90-day (9.1% vs 7.0%, p < 0.01) readmission rates, and the 90-day reoperation rate (4.3% vs 3.2%, p = 0.01) were all significantly higher in the DM group. For DM patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis, subgroup analyses demonstrated a significantly higher risk of poor surgical outcomes with the open approach.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with and without DM undergoing lumbar spinal decompression alone have comparable readmission and reoperation rates, while those undergoing arthrodesis procedures have a higher risk of poor surgical outcomes up to 90 days after surgery. Surgeons should target optimal DM control preoperatively, particularly for patients undergoing elective lumbar arthrodesis.
Early versus delayed mobilization after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety
*Alberto Morello, Antonio Spinello, Victor E. Staartjes, Enrico Lo Bue, Diego Garbossa, Menno R. Germans, Luca Regli, and Carlo Serra
OBJECTIVE
A central tenet of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is evidence-based medicine. Survivors of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) constitute a fragile patient population prone to prolonged hospitalization within neurointensive care units (NICUs), prolonged immobilization, and a range of nosocomial adverse events. Potentially, well-monitored early mobilization (EM) could constitute a beneficial element of ERAS protocols in this population. Therefore, the objective was to summarize the available evidence on EM strategies in patients with aSAH.
METHODS
The authors retrieved prospective and retrospective studies that reported efficacy or safety data on EM (defined as EM in the NICU starting ≤ 7 days after ictus) versus delayed mobilization (DM) (any strategy that comparatively delayed mobilization) after aSAH and were published after January 1, 2000, in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
Ten studies analyzing 1292 patients were included for quantitative synthesis, including 1 randomized, 1 prospective nonrandomized, and 8 retrospective studies. Modified Rankin Scale scores at discharge were not different between the EM and DM groups (mean difference [MD] [95% CI] −0.86 [−2.93 to 1.20] points, p = 0.41). Hospital length of stay in days was markedly reduced in the EM group (MD [95% CI] −6.56 [−10.64 to −2.47] days, p = 0.002). Although there was a statistically significant reduction in radiological vasospasms (OR [95% CI] 0.65 [0.44–0.97], p = 0.03), the reduction in clinically relevant vasospasms was nonsignificant (OR [95% CI] 0.63 [0.31–1.26], p = 0.19). The odds of shunting were significantly lower in the EM group (OR [95% CI] 0.61 [0.39–0.95], p = 0.03). The rates of mortality, pneumonia, and thrombosis were similar among groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Due to a lack of high-quality studies, vastly varying protocols, and resulting statistical clinical and statistical heterogeneity, the level of evidence for recommendations regarding EM in patients with aSAH remains low. The currently available data indicated that mobilization within the first 5 days after aneurysm repair was feasible and safe without significant excessive adverse events, that neurological outcome with EM was almost certainly not worse than with prolonged immobilization, and that there was likely at least some reduction in length of hospital stay. Radiological and clinical vasospasms were not more frequent—with signals even trending toward a decrease—in patients who mobilized early. Higher-quality studies and implementation of full ERAS protocols are necessary to evaluate efficacy and safety with a higher level of evidence and to guide practical implementation through increased standardization.
Clinical trial registration no.: CRD42023432828 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero)
Editorial. Overcoming implementation barriers in enhanced recovery using theory-based approaches
Walavan Sivakumar
Effect of the enhanced recovery protocol in patients with brain tumors undergoing elective craniotomies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Suchada Supbumrung, Anukoon Kaewborisutsakul, Chanatthee Kitsiripant, Wilairat Kankuan Kaewborisutsakul, and Chaitong Churuangsuk
OBJECTIVE
Enhanced recovery after surgery, or the enhanced recovery protocol (ERP), introduces a contemporary concept for perioperative care within neurosurgery. In recent years, mounting evidence has highlighted the significant impact of this approach on brain tumor surgery. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of current publications, with a primary focus on assessing the efficiency and safety of implementing ERP in the management of patients undergoing elective craniotomies for brain tumor resection.
METHODS
This study followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO database. A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus, and Embase databases was performed, and two independent reviewers extracted the data, assessed bias, and resolved disagreements through discussion. Primary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS) and hospitalization cost. The secondary outcomes were complications, including death, reoperation, readmission, intracerebral hemorrhage, CNS infection, and deep vein thrombosis. A random-effects model was used to evaluate the effects of implementing the ERP using the mean difference (MD) for primary outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics, and statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.
RESULTS
Eight studies, including 3 randomized controlled trials, 3 prospective studies, and 2 retrospective studies, were included in this meta-analysis. The ERP group had significantly shorter LOS (MD −2.69, 95% CI −3.65 to −1.73; p < 0.00001, I2 = 87%) and lower hospitalization cost (MD −$1188 [US dollars] 95% CI −$1726 to −$650; p = 0.0008, I2 = 71%) than the non-ERP group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of perioperative complications between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrated the effectiveness of the ERP in improving postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing elective craniotomies for brain tumors. This protocol has demonstrated the ability to reduce hospital stays and costs while maintaining a low complication rate. However, the study acknowledges the presence of clinical and statistical heterogeneity among the included articles, limiting the scope of its conclusions. Further high-quality comparative studies are necessary to substantiate these findings and establish their reliability.
Effects of a sphenopalatine ganglion block on postcraniotomy pain management: a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial
Giorgio Mantovani, Lorenzo Sgarbanti, Antonino Indaimo, Michele Alessandro Cavallo, Pasquale De Bonis, Maria Elena Flacco, and Alba Scerrati
OBJECTIVE
Postcraniotomy pain (PCP) is a common finding after neurosurgical procedures, occurring in as many 87% of patients. The sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) has a pivotal role in several headache syndromes, and its anesthetic block is currently used in different clinical conditions with benefit. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an SPG block (SPGB) via a transnasal approach as adjunctive therapy in reducing pain scores during the postcraniotomy period.
METHODS
In this single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, patients undergoing elective surgery with a supratentorial craniotomy were randomly assigned to a scalp block, local anesthetic infiltration of the wound, and systemic analgesia during the first 48 postoperative hours (standard therapy), or to standard therapy as well as an SPGB (experimental therapy). According to the available evidence, assuming a 50% reduction in the incidence of the main outcome in patients with an SPGB (vs standard treatment), 82 patients were needed to achieve 80% statistical power in an intent-to-treat analysis. Pain intensity was recorded during the first 180 postoperative days at selective time points (5 times in the hospital, 3 times by telephone interview) with different pain rating systems (a visual analog scale [VAS], numeric rating scale [NRS], and pain assessment in advanced dementia [PAINAD] scale), together with demographic, clinical, and surgical variables and complications. Heart rate and blood pressure were recorded during surgery. Differences in all variables were evaluated using a paired t-test and confirmed through Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
RESULTS
No complications occurred among the 83 patients enrolled. Statistically significant differences were found in the mean VAS score at postoperative days 0 (p = 0.05), 2 (p = 0.03), and 3 (p = 0.03). The PAINAD scale score showed significant differences between groups at postoperative days 1 (p = 0.006), 2 (p = 0.001), 3 (p = 0.03), and 4 (p = 0.05). The proportion of patients reporting a VAS score ≥ 3 in the first day after surgery was lower in the SPGB group than in the standard treatment group (71.9% vs 89.5%), although this difference did not reach statistical significance. At postoperative day 180, 5 patients (2 in the control group, 3 in the treatment group) had developed chronic PCP (NRS score ≥ 3).
CONCLUSIONS
SPGB is a safe and effective procedure as an adjunctive treatment for PCP management in elective supratentorial craniotomy during the first 4 postoperative days compared with standard therapy. Further studies are needed to better define the clinical impact of SPGB use and its indications.
Clinical trial registration no.: NCT05136625 (ClinicalTrials.gov)
