RESUMO
Introduction: Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring (IOM) is widely used in neurosurgery but specific guidelines are lacking. Therefore, we can assume differences in IOM application between Neurosurgical centers. Research question: The section of Functional Neurosurgery of the Italian Society of Neurosurgery realized a survey aiming to obtain general data on the current practice of IOM in Italy. Materials and methods: A 22-item questionnaire was designed focusing on: volume procedures, indications, awake surgery, experience, organization and equipe. The questionnaire has been sent to Italian Neurosurgery centers. Results: A total of 54 centers completed the survey. The annual volume of surgeries range from 300 to 2000, and IOM is used in 10-20% of the procedures. In 46% of the cases is a neurologist or a neurophysiologist who performs IOM. For supra-tentorial pathology, almost all perform MEPs (94%) SSEPs (89%), direct cortical stimulation (85%). All centers perform IOM in spinal surgery and 95% in posterior fossa surgery. Among the 50% that perform peripheral nerve surgery, all use IOM. Awake surgery is performed by 70% of centers. The neurosurgeon is the only responsible for IOM in 35% of centers. In 83% of cases IOM implementation is adequate to the request. Discussion and conclusions: The Italian Neurosurgical centers perform IOM with high level of specialization, but differences exist in organization, techniques, and expertise. Our survey provides a snapshot of the state of the art in Italy and it could be a starting point to implement a consensus on the practice of IOM.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to achieve a consensus on the minimum set of outcome measures and predictors to be used in the neurosurgical practice and on the timing of outcome assessment. METHODS: A consensus building approach was employed. All neurosurgical departments in Lombardy (Italy) were invited to participate by the Carlo Besta Neurologic Institute IRCCS Foundation. Three workshops were organized during which a multidisciplinary group called Neurosurgical Outcome Network (NEON) was created and the methodology to select outcome measures, predictors, and timing of outcome assessment was established. Eight working groups were created for the different neurosurgical diseases (neuro-oncological, skull base, vascular, traumatic, spinal, peripheral nervous system, malformation, functional) and 8 workshops were organized to identify the outcome measures and predictors specific for each of the neurosurgical diseases based on the experts' clinical practice and the existing literature. RESULTS: A total of 20 neurosurgical departments participated in this study. Specific outcome measures, predictors and the timing of outcome assessment were identified for each of the 8 neurosurgical diseases. Moreover, a list of variables common to all pathologies were identified by the NEON group as further data to be collected. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus on the minimum set of outcome measures and predictors and the timing of outcome assessments for 8 neurosurgical diseases was achieved by a group of neurosurgeons of the Lombardy region, called NEON. These sets could be used in future studies for a more homogeneous data collection and as a starting point to reach further agreement also at national and international level.
