Enhanced recovery and accelerated discharge after endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery: safety, patient feedback, and cost implications.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a constant motivation. There is growing evidence that an endoscopic (rather than microscopic) transsphenoidal approach to pituitary tumours can play a role, facilitating faster recovery and a commensurate reduction in length of stay (LOS). Reducing LOS is beneficial to both patients and healthcare systems. We sought to assess the safety, patient feedback, and resource implications of adopting an enhanced recovery and accelerated discharge policy for elective pituitary surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed two consecutive cohorts of patients undergoing elective surgery for pituitary adenoma in a single UK centre between July 2016 and November 2019. The pre-ERAS cohort included 52 sequential patients operated prior to protocol change. The ERAS cohort included 55 sequential patients operated after a protocol change. Patient demographic data, tumour characteristics, intra- and post-operative CSF leak, the rate and cause of readmission (within 30 days), and the mean and median LOS were recorded. Patient feedback was collected from a subset of patients (n = 23) in the ERAS group. RESULTS: The two cohorts were well-matched with respect to their demographic, pathological, and operative characteristics. The rates of readmission within 30 days of discharge were similar between the two groups (8% pre-ERAS cohort, 9% ERAS cohort, p = 0.75). In the pre-ERAS cohort, the mean LOS was 4.5 days and median LOS was 3 days. This compares with significant reduction in LOS for the ERAS group: mean of 1.7 days and median of 1 day (p < 0.05). Thirty-nine of 55 patients in the ERAS group were discharged on post-operative day 1. Patient feedback was very positive in the ERAS group (mean patient satisfaction score of 9.7/10 using a Likert scale). CONCLUSIONS: An enhanced recovery protocol after elective endoscopic pituitary surgery is safe, reduces length of stay, and is associated with high patient satisfaction.

Natural History of Intracranial Arachnoid Cysts.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial arachnoid cysts are a common incidental finding. Most of these remain asymptomatic with surgical intervention being reserved for those cysts causing symptoms from mass effect or hydrocephalus. It is not properly understood why cysts enlarge nor is it possible to predict in which cysts this will occur. The aim of this study is to review the natural history of incidental arachnoid cysts. METHODS: A retrospective case review was conducted of all patients diagnosed with an arachnoid cyst between 2007 and 2016. Case notes and radiology reports were reviewed for demographics, symptoms, and changes in cyst sizes. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-five patients were diagnosed with an arachnoid cyst during this time period; of these, 425 (87.6%) were asymptomatic. Patients with symptomatic cysts were significantly younger and more likely to have associated hydrocephalus. The most common indications for imaging which resulted in the diagnosis of the cyst were headaches (n = 106), stroke (n = 51), and seizures (n = 41). The cyst size remained stable or reduced in 147 patients (99.3%) with follow-up imaging (n = 148), and the enlarging cyst remained asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic arachnoid cysts have a low rate of cyst enlargement on follow-up imaging, which supports not routinely imaging these patients. However, serial imaging and surgery may still be indicated in asymptomatic patients at risk of obstructive hydrocephalus which, in this series, was only seen in the pediatric population. A better understanding of the natural history of intracranial arachnoid cysts allows for more efficient follow-up planning.

Management of incidental aneurysms: comparison of single Centre multi-disciplinary team decision making with the unruptured incidental aneurysm treatment score.

OBJECTIVE: To compare multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision making at our centre with the suggested management from the recently published Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysm Treatment Score (UIATS), with particular focus on disagreements between the two bodies of expert opinion. DESIGN: A retrospective audit of local practice. SUBJECTS: Adult patients with incidental cerebral saccular aneurysms referred to The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery Neurovascular MDT. METHODS: Review of MDT records from 2010-2015 and collection of UIATS criteria. MDT decisions for each aneurysm were designated as conservative or treatment group, then assessed for correlation with the UIATS. RESULTS: Data was collected on 398 aneurysms from 296 patients. 57% of aneurysms were managed conservatively and 43% were treated with endovascular or open repair. Total follow up was 8409 aneurysm months (mean: 21 months per aneurysm). The overall proportion of agreement (p0) was 66.6% (95% CI: 61.9-71.2). Cohen's Kappa (k) was 0.325 suggesting only a "fair" level of agreement between the two raters. Absolute agreement rates increased from 60% in 2010 to 74% in 2015. Aneurysm size was an important factor for disagreement, 77% of aneurysms treated following MDT, but not in agreement with the UIATS, were >7 mm, compared with only 70.5% in those treated following MDT and in agreement with UIATS. CONCLUSION: There was disagreement between the two expert opinions analysed in this study. A key factor was aneurysm size, with decision making at our centre seemingly more guided by older landmark papers such as work by the International Study of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms (ISUIA) group. However, agreement was at its highest at the end of the study period, suggesting increasing convergence between the two bodies of expert opinion. The reasons for disagreement and particularly clinicians' reliance on aneurysm size in decision making is something that needs consideration when planning and auditing aneurysm services.