Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Erika G. Puente x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Pierpaolo Peruzzi, Sergio D. Bergese, Adolfo Viloria, Erika G. Puente, Mahmoud Abdel-Rasoul and E. Antonio Chiocca

Object

Glioma resection under conscious (“awake”) sedation (CS) is used for eloquent areas of the brain to minimize postoperative neurological deficits. The objective of this study was to compare the duration of hospital stay, overall hospital cost, perioperative morbidity, and postoperative patient functional status in patients whose gliomas were resected using CS versus general endotracheal anesthesia (GEA).

Methods

Twenty-two cases in 20 patients who underwent surgery for cerebral gliomas under CS and a matched cohort of 22 cases in 19 patients who underwent surgery under GEA over a 3-year period were retrospectively evaluated. Criteria for inclusion in the study were as follows: 1) a single cerebral lesion; 2) gross-total resection as evidenced by postoperative Gd-enhanced MR imaging within 48 hours of surgery; 3) a WHO Grade II, III, or IV glioma; 4) a supratentorial lesion location; 5) a Karnofsky Performance Scale score ≥ 70; 6) an operation performed by the same neurosurgeon; and 7) an elective procedure.

Results

The average hospital stay was significantly different between the 2 groups: 3.5 days for patients who underwent CS and 4.6 days for those who underwent GEA. This result translated into a significant decrease in the average inpatient cost after intensive care unit (ICU) care for the CS group compared with the GEA group. Other variables were not significantly different.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing glioma resection using CS techniques have a significantly shorter hospital stay with reduced inpatient hospital expenses after postoperative ICU care.

Full access

Alberto A. Uribe, Mirza N. Baig, Erika G. Puente, Adolfo Viloria, Ehud Mendel and Sergio D. Bergese

Postoperative visual loss (POVL) after spine surgery performed with the patient prone is a rare but devastating postoperative complication. The incidence and the mechanisms of visual loss after surgery are difficult to determine. The 4 recognized causes of POVL are ischemic optic neuropathy (approximately 89%), central retinal artery occlusion (approximately 11%), cortical infarction, and external ocular injury. There are very limited guidelines or protocols on the perioperative practice for “prone-position” surgeries. However, new devices have been designed to prevent mechanical ocular compression during prone-position spine surgeries. The authors used PubMed to perform a literature search for devices used in prone-position spine surgeries. A total of 7 devices was found; the authors explored these devices' features, advantages, and disadvantages. The cause of POVL seems to be a multifactorial problem with unclear pathophysiological mechanisms. Therefore, ocular compression is a critical factor, and eliminating any obvious compression to the eye with these devices could possibly prevent this devastating perioperative complication.