ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We surveyed the treatment of acute spinal cord injuries in the UK and compared current practices with 10 years ago. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted amongst neurosurgeons, neuroanaesthetists, and neurointensivists that manage patients with acute spinal cord injuries. The survey gave two scenarios (complete and incomplete cervical spinal cord injuries). We obtained opinions on the speed of transfer, timing and aim of surgery, choice of anaesthetic, intraoperative monitoring, targets for physiological parameters, and drug treatments. RESULTS: We received responses from 78.6% of UK units that manage acute spinal cord injuries (33 neurosurgeons, 56 neuroanaesthetists/neurointensivists). Most neurosurgeons operate within 12 h for incomplete (82%) and complete (64%) injuries. There is a significant shift from 10 years ago, when only 61% (incomplete) and 30% (complete) of neurosurgeons operated within 12 h. The preferred anaesthetic technique in 2022 is total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA), used by 69% of neuroanaesthetists. Significantly more intraoperative monitoring is now used at least sometimes, including bispectral index (91%), non-invasive cardiac output (62%), and neurophysiology (73-77%). Methylprednisolone is no longer used by surgeons. Achieving at least 80 mmHg mean arterial blood pressure is recommended by 70% neurosurgeons, 62% neuroanaesthetists, and 75% neurointensivists. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2012 and 2022, there was a paradigm shift in managing acute spinal cord injuries in the UK with earlier surgery and more intraoperative monitoring. Variability in practice persists due to lack of high-quality evidence and consensus guidelines.
Subject(s)
Anesthetics , Spinal Cord Injuries , Humans , Spinal Cord Injuries/epidemiology , Spinal Cord Injuries/surgery , Methylprednisolone/therapeutic use , Critical Care , Anesthetics/therapeutic use , United Kingdom/epidemiologySubject(s)
Dexamethasone , Humans , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Perioperative Period , NeurosciencesABSTRACT
Ultrasound-guided scalp blocks may revolutionize regional anesthesia for neurosurgery. In this report, we demonstrate that ultrasound-guided scalp blocks can be used effectively for a craniotomy. A 48-year-old patient with a brain tumor at the motor cortex was scheduled for an awake craniotomy. Ultrasound-guided scalp blocks targeting the bilateral supraorbital, supratrochlear, zygomaticotemporal, auriculotemporal, greater auricular, lesser occipital, greater occipital, and third occipital nerves were performed. A total of 29 mL of levobupivacaine 0.3% was used. No additional local anesthetic agent was given for skull pinning, skin incision, or the craniotomy. Postoperatively, the patient remained pain-free, and she was discharged without complications.
Subject(s)
Anesthetics, Local , Nerve Block , Craniotomy , Female , Humans , Levobupivacaine , Middle Aged , Scalp/innervation , Scalp/surgery , Ultrasonography, Interventional , WakefulnessABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Positioning during endotracheal intubation (ETI) is critical to ensure its success. We aimed to determine if the ramping position improved laryngeal exposure and first attempt success at intubation when compared to the sniffing position. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched systematically from inception until January 2020. Our primary outcomes included laryngeal exposure as measured by Cormack-Lehane Grade 1 or 2 (CLG 1/2), CLG 3 or 4 (CLG 3/4), and first attempt success at intubation. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, use of airway adjuncts, ancillary maneuvers and complications during ETI. RESULTS: Seven studies met our inclusion criteria, of which 4 were RCTs and 3 were cohort studies. The meta-analysis was conducted by pooling the effect estimates for all 4 included RCTs (n=632). There were no differences found between ramping and sniffing positions for odds of CLG 1/2, CLG 3/4, first attempt success at intubation, intubation time, use of ancillary airway maneuvers and use of airway adjuncts, with evidence of high heterogeneity across studies. However, the ramping position in surgical patients is associated with increased likelihood of CLG 1/2 (OR=2.05, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.32, p=0.004) and lower likelihood of CLG 3/4 (OR=0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.79, p=0.004), moderate quality of evidence. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the ramping position may benefit surgical patients undergoing ETI by improving laryngeal exposure. Large-scale well-designed multicentre RCTs should be carried out to further elucidate the benefits of the ramping position in the surgical and intensive care unit patients.
Subject(s)
Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Patient Positioning/methods , Cohort Studies , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/adverse effects , Larynx , Posture , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Time FactorsABSTRACT
Abstract Objectives Positioning during endotracheal intubation (ETI) is critical to ensure its success. We aimed to determine if the ramping position improved laryngeal exposure and first attempt success at intubation when compared to the sniffing position. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched systematically from inception until January 2020. Our primary outcomes included laryngeal exposure as measured by Cormack-Lehane Grade 1 or 2 (CLG 1/2), CLG 3 or 4 (CLG 3/4), and first attempt success at intubation. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, use of airway adjuncts, ancillary maneuvers, and complications during ETI. Results Seven studies met our inclusion criteria, of which 4 were RCTs and 3 were cohort studies. The meta-analysis was conducted by pooling the effect estimates for all 4 included RCTs (n = 632). There were no differences found between ramping and sniffing positions for odds of CLG 1/2, CLG 3/4, first attempt success at intubation, intubation time, use of ancillary airway maneuvers, and use of airway adjuncts, with evidence of high heterogeneity across studies. However, the ramping position in surgical patients is associated with increased likelihood of CLG 1/2 (OR = 2.05, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.32, p = 0.004) and lower likelihood of CLG 3/4 (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.79, p = 0.004), moderate quality of evidence. Conclusion Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the ramping position may benefit surgical patients undergoing ETI by improving laryngeal exposure. Large scale well designed multicentre RCTs should be carried out to further elucidate the benefits of the ramping position in the surgical and intensive care unit patients.
Resumo Objetivos A posição do paciente durante a Intubação Traqueal (IT) é fundamental para o sucesso do procedimento. Nosso objetivo foi determinar se a posição de rampa melhorou a visualização laríngea e o êxito na primeira tentativa de intubação quando comparada à posição olfativa. Métodos Os bancos de dados PubMed, EMBASE e Cochrane CENTRAL foram pesquisados de forma sistemática a partir da data em que os bancos de dados foram estabelecidos até janeiro de 2020. Nossos desfechos primários incluíram a visualização laríngea avaliada como Cormack‐Lehane Grau 1 ou 2 (CLG 1/2), Cormack‐Lehane Grau 3 ou 4 (CLG 3/4) e o êxito na primeira tentativa de intubação. Os desfechos secundários foram o tempo de intubação, uso de dispositivos adjuvantes para manuseio de vias aéreas, manobras auxiliares e complicações durante a IT. Resultados Sete estudos preencheram nossos critérios de inclusão, dos quais 4 eram Estudos Clínicos Randomizados (ECR) e 3 eram estudos de coorte. A meta‐análise foi conduzida combinando as estimativas de efeito para todos os 4 ECR incluídos (n = 632). Não foram encontradas diferenças entre as posições de rampa e olfativa para razão de chances de CLG 1/2, CLG 3/4, sucesso na primeira tentativa de intubação, tempo de intubação, uso de manobras auxiliares das vias aéreas e uso de dispositivos adjuvantes de vias aéreas, havendo evidência de alta heterogeneidade nos estudos. No entanto, a posição de rampa em pacientes cirúrgicos está associada com maior probabilidade de CLG 1/2 (OR = 2,05; 95% IC 1,26 a 3,32; p = 0,004) e menor probabilidade de CLG 3/4 (OR = 0,49; 95% IC 0,30 a 0,79; p = 0,004), com qualidade moderada de evidência. Conclusão Nossa meta‐análise demonstrou que a posição de rampa pode beneficiar pacientes cirúrgicos submetidos a IT, melhorando a visualização laríngea. ECR multicêntricos bem projetados com amostras grandes devem ser realizados para esclarecer ainda mais os benefícios da posição de rampa nos pacientes cirúrgicos e na unidade de terapia intensiva.
