Postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting in neurosurgical patients

Stereoelectroencephalography: a review of complications and outcomes in a new Australian centre

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of refractory focal epilepsy requires preoperative localisation of the epileptogenic zone (EZ). To augment noninvasive studies, stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) is being increasingly adopted as a form of intracranial monitoring.

AIMS

This study aimed to determine the rate of complications for patients undergoing SEEG and to report the success of SEEG with regard to EZ detection and seizure outcome following definitive surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design investigated all cases of SEEG at our institution. Surgical, anaesthetic and medical complications with subsequent epilepsy surgery and seizure outcome data were extracted from medical records. Multivariate logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between both the number of electrodes per patient and the duration of SEEG recording with the rate of complications.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients with 66 implantations were included. Headache was the most common complication (n = 54, 82%). There were no major surgical or medical complications. Two anaesthetic complications occurred. EZ localisation was successful in 63 cases (95%). Curative intent surgery was performed in 39 patients (59%) and 23 patients achieved an Engel class I outcome (59% of those undergoing surgery). The number of electrodes and duration of recording were not associated with complications.

CONCLUSIONS

No patients in our series experienced major surgical or medical complications and we have highlighted the challenges associated with neuroanaesthesia in SEEG. Our complication rates and seizure outcomes are equivalent to published literature indicating that this technique can be successfully established in newer centres using careful case selection. Standardised reporting of SEEG complications should be adopted.

Scalp Nerve Block, Local Anesthetic Infiltration, and Postoperative Pain After Craniotomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

The most efficacious methods for controlling postoperative pain in craniotomy remain unknown. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed to compare the efficacies of different strategies of scalp nerve block (SNB), scalp infiltration (SI), and control in patients undergoing craniotomy. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was postoperative 24-hour pain score, and the secondary outcome was opioid consumption within the first 24 hour after surgery. The effect was estimated using the between-group mean difference and ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) score. Twenty-four randomized trials were identified for inclusion. SNB using ropivacaine reduced postoperative 24-hour pain score when compared with control (mean difference [95% credible interval], -2.04 [-3.13, -0.94]; low quality), and when compared with SI using ropivacaine (-1.77 [-3.04, -0.51]; low quality) or bupivacaine (-1.96 [-3.65, -0.22]; low quality). SNB using ropivacaine was likely the most efficacious method for pain control (SUCRA, 91%), and also reduced opioid consumption within the first postoperative 24 hours as compared with control (mean difference [95% credible interval], -11.91 [-22.42, -1.4]; low quality). SNB using bupivacaine, lidocaine, and epinephrine combined, and SNB using ropivacaine, were likely the most efficacious methods for opioid consumption reduction (SUCRA, 88% and 80%, respectively). In summary, different methods of SNB / SI seem to have different efficacies after craniotomy. SNB using ropivacaine may be superior to other methods for postcraniotomy pain control; however, the overall quality of evidence was low.

Early Postoperative Opioid Requirement Is Associated With Later Pain Control Needs After Supratentorial Craniotomies

BACKGROUND

Despite a renewed focus in recent years on pain management in the inpatient hospital setting, postoperative pain after elective craniotomy remains under investigated. This study aims to identify which perioperative factors associate most strongly with postoperative pain and opioid medication requirements after inpatient craniotomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using an existing dataset, we selected a restricted cohort of patients who underwent elective craniotomy surgery requiring an inpatient postoperative stay during a 7-year period at our institution (n=1832). We examined pain scores and opioid medication usage and analyzed the relative contribution of specific perioperative risk factors to postoperative pain and opioid medication intake (morphine milligram equivalents).

RESULTS

Postoperative pain was found to be highest on postoperative day 1 and decreased thereafter (up to day 5). Factors associated with greater postoperative opioid medication requirement were preoperative opioid medication use, duration of anesthesia, degree of pain in the preoperative setting, and patient age. Notably, the most significant factor associated with a higher postoperative pain score and Morphine milligram equivalents requirement was the time elapsed between the end of general anesthesia and a patient's first intravenous opioid medication.

CONCLUSION

Postcraniotomy patients are at higher risk for requiring opioid pain medications if they have a history of preoperative opioid use, are of younger age, or undergo a longer surgery. Moreover, early requirement of intravenous opioid medications in the postoperative period should alert treating physicians that a patient's pain may require additional or alternative methods of pain control than routinely administered, to avoid over-reliance on opioid medications.

Anesthesia and analgesia for experimental craniotomy in mice and rats: a systematic scoping review comparing the years 2009 and 2019

Experimental craniotomies are a common surgical procedure in neuroscience. Because inadequate analgesia appears to be a problem in animal-based research, we conducted this review and collected information on management of craniotomy-associated pain in laboratory mice and rats. A comprehensive search and screening resulted in the identification of 2235 studies, published in 2009 and 2019, describing craniotomy in mice and/or rats. While key features were extracted from all studies, detailed information was extracted from a random subset of 100 studies/year. Reporting of perioperative analgesia increased from 2009 to 2019. However, the majority of studies from both years did not report pharmacologic pain management. Moreover, reporting of multimodal treatments remained at a low level, and monotherapeutic approaches were more common. Among drug groups, reporting of pre- and postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and local anesthetics in 2019 exceeded that of 2009. In summary, these results suggest that inadequate analgesia and oligoanalgesia are persistent issues associated with experimental intracranial surgery. This underscores the need for intensified training of those working with laboratory rodents subjected to craniotomies.

Systematic review registration

https://osf.io/7d4qe.

The effectiveness of scalp nerve block on hemodynamic response in craniotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

INTRODUCTION

Strategies that blunt noxious stimuli and stabilize hemodynamics may reduce perioperative cardiovascular complications and enhance recovery after craniotomy.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Our systematic literature review and meta-analysis investigated whether scalp nerve block (SNB) reduces the acute hemodynamic response compared with non-SNB (scalp infiltration or control) in adult patients undergoing elective craniotomy. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and two Chinese databases for randomized trials. Primary outcomes included mean arterial pressure and heart rate during skull pin insertion and surgical incision in craniotomy. Secondary outcomes included incidence of hypertension and dosage of intraoperative analgesic opioids used. Random-effects models were used for meta-analyses.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

SNB significantly reduced the mean arterial pressure (mean difference: -14.00 mmHg; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -19.71 to -8.28) and heart rate (mean difference: -11.55 beat/min; 95% CI: -19.31 to -3.80), when compared with non-SNB during skull pin insertion. A similar trend was observed during skin incisions (SNB vs. non-SNB, mean difference in mean arterial pressure: -9.46 mmHg; 95% CI: -14.53 to -4.38; mean difference in heart rate: -9.34 beat/min; 95% CI: -15.40 to -3.28). Subgroup analysis showed that, compared with scalp infiltration, SNB reduced mean arterial pressure and heart during pin insertion but not during skin incisions. SNB also reduced the incidence of intraoperative hypertension, but no difference was observed in intraoperative opioid consumption when compared with non-SNB.

CONCLUSIONS

SNB alleviated the craniotomy-associated hemodynamic response. SNB may be superior to scalp infiltration in maintaining hemodynamic stability during pin insertion. However, high-quality trials are still needed to provide more conclusive evidence.

Preoperative Versus Postoperative Scalp Block Combined With Incision Line Infiltration for Pain Control After Supratentorial Craniotomy

OBJECTIVE

Postoperative pain after craniotomy is a significant clinical problem that is sometimes underestimated, although moderate or severe pain in early postoperative period complicates up to 60% of cases. The purpose of this prospective randomized multicenter trial was to determine the optimal timing for selective scalp block in patients undergoing general anesthesia for supratentorial craniotomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After ethics committee approval and informed consent, 56 adult patients were enrolled, and randomly assigned to receive a selective scalp block combined with incision line infiltration preoperatively or postoperatively.

RESULTS

Postoperative pain at 24 hours after the procedure was recorded in all 56 enrolled patients. In patients assigned to receive a scalp block preoperatively, median VAS score at 24 hours after surgery was 0 (0 to 2), and in patients assigned to receive a scalp block postoperatively it was 0 (0 to 3) (P>0.05). There was no difference in severity of pain at 24, 12, 6, and 2 hours after surgery between the 2 study groups, but the amount of fentanyl administered intraoperatively was lower in patients assigned to the preoperative scalp block group (1.6±0.7 vs. 2.4±0.7 mkg/kg/h, P=0.01).

DISCUSSION

This study confirms and extends available clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of selective scalp blocks for the prevention of postoperative pain. Recorded data suggest that there is no difference in terms of occurrence and severity of postoperative pain regardless of whether the scalp block is performed preoperatively (after general anesthesia induction) or postoperatively (before extubation). Patients assigned to receive a scalp block combined with incision line infiltration preoperatively needed less intraoperative opioids than those assigned to postoperative scalp block.

Effect of bilateral scalp nerve blocks on postoperative pain and discharge times in patients undergoing supratentorial craniotomy and general anesthesia: a randomized-controlled trial

PURPOSE

Post-craniotomy pain is a common clinical issue and its optimal management remains incompletely studied. Utilization of a regional scalp block has the potential advantage of reducing perioperative pain and opioid consumption, thereby facilitating optimal postoperative neurologic assessment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of regional scalp block on post-craniotomy pain and opioid consumption.

METHODS

We performed a prospective randomized-controlled trial in adults scheduled to undergo elective supratentorial craniotomy under general anesthesia to assess the efficacy of postoperative bilateral scalp block with 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine compared with placebo on postoperative pain and opioid consumption. The primary outcome was the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain at 24 hr postoperatively.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine patients were enrolled (n = 44 in block group; n = 45 in control group). There was no difference in the mean (standard deviation) VAS score at 24 hr postoperatively between the treatment group and the control group [31.2 (21.4) mm vs 23.0 (19.2) mm, respectively; mean difference, 6.6; 95% confidence interval, -2.3, 15.5; P = 0.15]. There was also no significant difference in postoperative opioid consumption. Distribution of individual VAS score and opioid consumption revealed that postoperative pain was highly variable following craniotomy. Time to hospital discharge was not different between treatment and placebo groups. No adverse events associated with scalp block were identified.

CONCLUSION

These data show that bilateral scalp blocks using bupivacaine with epinephrine did not reduce mean postoperative VAS score or overall opioid consumption at 24 hr nor the time-to-discharge from the postanesthesia care unit or from hospital.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00972790; registered 9 September, 2009.

Pre-emptive scalp infiltration with dexamethasone plus ropivacaine for postoperative pain after craniotomy: a protocol for a prospective, randomized controlled trial

Background: Approximately 55–87% of the patients undergoing craniotomy experience moderate to severe pain during the first 48 hrs after surgery, which negatively influences patients’ postoperative rehabilitation. Recently, local infiltration of analgesia (LIA) has been widely performed clinically as a promising analgesic method that could avoid the side effects of analgesics but only has a short pain-free duration; researchers have clarified that the addition of dexamethasone to LIA could provide significant analgesic effects and significantly prolong the duration of analgesic effects without obvious complications for various types of surgeries. To date, no studies have evaluated the addition of dexamethasone to LIA for patients receiving craniotomy. The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that pre-emptive scalp infiltration with a steroid (dexamethasone) plus a local anesthetic (ropivacaine) could achieve superior postoperative analgesic effects to a local anesthetic (ropivacaine) alone in adult patients undergoing a craniotomy.

Study design and methods: This study is a randomized controlled trial that will include one intervention and one control group involving a total of 140 adults scheduled for elective craniotomy for resection of supratentorial tumors under general anesthesia and with an anticipated full recovery within 2 hrs postoperatively. The intervention will involve pre-emptive scalp infiltration with ropivacaine plus dexamethasone (the dexamethasone group) or ropivacaine alone (the control group), and the participants in both groups will complete a 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome will be the cumulative sufentanil consumption within 48 hrs postoperatively.

Discussion: The intervention, if effective, this study will provide clinically important information on the role of dexamethasone in scalp infiltration for post-craniotomy pain management.

Perioperative Factors Contributing the Post-Craniotomy Pain: A Synthesis of Concepts

The perioperative management of post-craniotomy pain is controversial. Although the concept of pain control in non-neurosurgical fields has grown substantially, the understanding of neurosurgical pain and its causative factors in such a population is inconclusive. In fact, the organ that is the center of pain and its related mechanisms receives little attention to alleviate distress during neurosurgical procedures. In contrast to the old belief that pain following intracranial surgery is minimal, recent data suggest the exact opposite. Despite the evolution of various multimodal analgesic techniques for optimal pain control, the concern of post-craniotomy pain remains. This paradox could be due to the lack of thorough understanding of different perioperative factors that can influence the incidence and intensity of pain in post-craniotomy population. Therefore, this review aims to give an in-depth insight into the various aspects of pain and its related factors in adult neurosurgical patients.

The efficacy of P6 acupressure with sea-band in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing craniotomy: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a multifactorial problem after general anesthesia. Despite antiemetic prophylaxis and improved anesthetic techniques, PONV still occurs frequently after craniotomies. P6 stimulation is described as an alternative method for preventing PONV. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether P6 acupressure with Sea-Band could reduce postoperative nausea after elective craniotomy. Secondary aims were to investigate whether the frequency of vomiting and the need for antiemetics could be reduced.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, patients were randomized into either a P6 acupressure group (n=43) or a sham group (n=52). Bands were applied unilaterally at the end of surgery, and all patients were administered prophylactic ondansetron. Postoperative nausea was evaluated with a Numerical Rating Scale, 0 to10, and the frequency of vomiting was recorded for 48 hours.

RESULTS

We found no significant effect from P6 acupressure with Sea-Band on postoperative nausea or vomiting in patients undergoing craniotomy. Nor was there any difference in the need for rescue antiemetics. Altogether, 67% experienced PONV, and this was especially an issue at >24 hours in patients recovering from infratentorial surgery compared with supratentorial surgery (55% vs. 26%; P=0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Unilateral P6 acupressure with Sea-Band applied at the end of surgery together with prophylactic ondansetron did not significantly reduce PONV or the need for rescue antiemetics in patients undergoing craniotomy. Our study confirmed that PONV is a common issue after craniotomy, especially after infratentorial surgery.

Efficacy of dexamethasone added to ramosetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in highly susceptible patients following spine surgery

Background

Opioid-based patient controlled analgesia (PCA) provides adequate pain control following spinal surgeries at the expense of increased risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We evaluated the efficacy of dexamethasone added to ramosetron, which is a newly developed five-hydroxytryptamine receptor 3 antagonist with a higher receptor affinity and longer action duration compared to its congeners, on preventing PONV in highly susceptible patients receiving opioid-based IV PCA after spinal surgery.

Methods

One hundred nonsmoking female patients undergoing spinal surgery were randomly allocated to either a ramosetron group (group R) or a ramosetron plus dexamethasone group (group RD)., Normal saline (1 ml) or 5 mg of dexamethasone was injected before anesthetic induction, while at the end of the surgery, ramosetron (0.3 mg) was administered to all patients and fentanyl-based IV PCA was continued for 48 hrs. The incidence and severity of PONV, pain score and the amount of rescue antiemetics were assessed for 48 hours after surgery.

Results

The number of patients with moderate to severe nausea (20 vs. 10, P = 0.029), and overall incidence of vomiting (13 vs. 5, P = 0.037) were significantly lower in the group RD than in the group R, respectively. Rescue antiemetic was used less in the RD group without significance.

Conclusions

Combination of ramosetron and dexamethasone significantly reduced the incidence of moderate to severe nausea and vomiting compared to ramosetron alone in highly susceptible patients receiving opioid-based IV PCA after surgery.

Effect of intravenous parecoxib on post-craniotomy pain

BACKGROUND

Pain management in craniotomy patients is challenging, with mild-to-moderate pain intensity, moderate-to-high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and potentially catastrophic consequences of analgesic-related side-effects. The aim of this study was to determine whether i.v. parecoxib administered at dural closure during craniotomy decreased total morphine consumption and morphine-related side-effects compared with placebo.

METHODS

One hundred adult patients presenting for supratentorial craniotomy under propofol/remifentanil anaesthesia were randomized to receive parecoxib, 40 mg i.v., or placebo in a double-blind manner. All patients received local anaesthetic scalp infiltration, regular i.v. paracetamol, nurse-administered morphine in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) until verbal analogue pain scores were ≤4/10 and patient-controlled morphine thereafter. Morphine consumption, pain intensity, and analgesia-related side-effects were recorded during the first 24 h after operation.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients (49 control and 47 parecoxib) were included in the analyses. Fifty-nine (61%) patients received morphine in the PACU and only one patient (control) did not receive any morphine in the postoperative period. There were no significant differences between the two groups in morphine consumption [20 (range: 0-102) vs 16 (range: 1-92) mg; P=0.38], pain intensity [excellent/very good pain relief in 78% of parecoxib patients; 74% of control patients (P=0.72)] or analgesia-related side-effects (PONV in 51% of parecoxib patients; 56% of control patients; P=0.55) in the first 24 h after operation. No major morbidity was recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated no clinical benefit to adding i.v. parecoxib to local anaesthetic scalp infiltration, i.v. paracetamol, and patient-controlled i.v. morphine after supratentorial craniotomy.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients after craniotomy: incidence and risk factors

OBJECT

The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence and risk factors of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after craniotomy because most available data about PONV in neurosurgical patients are retrospective in nature or derive from small prospective studies.

METHODS

Postoperative nausea and vomiting was prospectively assessed within 24 hours after surgery in 229 patients requiring supratentorial or infratentorial craniotomy. To rule out the relevance of the neurosurgical procedure itself to the development of PONV, the observed incidence of vomiting was compared with the rate of vomiting predicted with a surgery-independent risk score (Apfel postoperative vomiting score).

RESULTS

The overall incidence of PONV after craniotomy was 47%. Logistic regression identified female sex as a risk factor for postoperative nausea (OR 4.25, 95% CI 2.3-7.8) and vomiting (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.4-4.9). Both the incidence of nausea (OR 3.76, 95% CI 2.06-6.88) and vomiting (OR 4.48, 95% CI 2.4-8.37) were increased in patients not receiving steroids. Postoperative nausea and vomiting occurred after infratentorial as well as after supratentorial procedures. The observed incidence of vomiting within 24 hours after surgery was higher (49%) than would be predicted with the Apfel surgery-independent risk score (31%; p = 0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall incidence of PONV within 24 hours after craniotomy was approximately 50%. One possible reason is that intracranial surgeries pose an additional and independent risk factor for vomiting, especially in female patients. Patients undergoing craniotomy should be identified as high-risk patients for PONV.

Prospective assessment of postoperative pain after craniotomy

Pain after craniotomy may be underdiagnosed, despite the fact that it can increase postoperative complications for example arterial hypertension and postoperative hemorrhage. This study investigates the incidence and intensity of pain after craniotomy and characterizes the influencing parameters. During a 1-year period 256 patients undergoing elective craniotomy were prospectively included in the study. Intensity of pain was evaluated 1, 4, and 24 hours after extubation using a verbal numerical rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximal pain). Routine perioperative pain management was not influenced by the investigators. Parameters including patient-related factors, drug administration, and surgical factors were correlated with incidence and intensity of postcraniotomy pain.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

logistic regression and chi using SPSS program (Windows, version 12.0). During the first 24 hours 87% of the patients experienced pain (NRS 1 to 3: 32%, NRS 4 to 7: 44%, NRS 8 to 10: 11%). For postoperative analgesia, the opioid piritramide (a mu-receptor agonist) was administered to 70% and nonopiod analgesics to 73% of the patients. The probability of experiencing postcraniotomy pain was reduced by 3% for each year of life. Maintenance of anesthesia with sevoflurane increased the probability of suffering from postcraniotomy pain by 147% and the absence of corticosteroids by 119%. Other investigated parameters did not influence pain after craniotomy. This study shows that pain is experienced by the majority of patients after craniotomy, despite conventional pain management, emphasizing the necessity for improved and individualized pain management in this special group of patients.

Effect of ropivacaine skull block on perioperative outcomes in patients with supratentorial brain tumors and comparison with remifentanil: a pilot study

Object

Skull blockade for craniotomy may result in the reduction of sympathetic stimulation associated with the application of head pins (“pinning”), improvement in intraoperative hemodynamic stability, and a decrease in intraoperative anesthetic requirements. Postoperative benefits may include a decrease in pain, in analgesic requirements, and in the incidence of nausea and vomiting. The authors examined the potential benefits of a skull block in patients in whom a maintenance anesthetic consisting of sevoflurane and a titratable remifentanil infusion was used. In other studies examining the ability of a skull block to improve perioperative outcomes, investigators have not used remifentanil.

Methods

Thirty patients presenting for resection of a supratentorial tumor were prospectively enrolled. Patients were randomized into 2 groups as follows: 14 patients (skull block group) received a skull block with 0.5% ropivacaine at least 15 minutes prior to pinning, whereas the remaining 16 patients (control group) did not.

Results

Patients in the skull block group did not have a significant increase in blood pressure or heart rate with placement of head pins, whereas patients in the control group did. Nevertheless, there was no difference in blood pressure variability between the groups. The mean intraoperative concentration of sevoflurane (1.0% in both groups, p = 0.703) and remifentanil (0.163 μg/kg/min compared with 0.205 μg/kg/min, p = 0.186) used was similar in both groups. During the postoperative period, there was no difference in the 1-, 2-, or 4-hour visual analog scale scores; in the need for postoperative narcotic analgesia (0.274 morphine equivalent mg/kg compared with 0.517 morphine equivalent mg/kg, p = 0.162); or in the incidence of nausea or vomiting.

Conclusions

Prospective analysis of perioperative skull blockade failed to demonstrate significant benefit in patients treated with a remifentanil infusion.

Anesthetic considerations for intraoperative management of cerebrovascular disease in neurovascular surgical procedures

Despite new surgical methods and interventions a considerable number of patients who undergo neurovascular procedures emergently or electively have substantial mortality, morbidity, and disability. Sound knowledge of pathophysiology of cerebral hypoperfusion, reliable and timely information from monitoring devices, and appropriate choice of therapeutic intervention is essential for successful anesthetic management of these patients. The management of perioperative vasospasm and temporary ischemia during aneurysm clipping require an understanding of cerebral vascular pathophysiology and neuroprotective measures.

Anaesthesia for elective neurosurgery

Neuroanaesthesia continues to develop and expand. It is a speciality where the knowledge and expertise of the anaesthetist can directly influence patient outcome. Evolution of neurosurgical practice is accompanied by new challenges for the anaesthetist. Increasingly, we must think not only as an anaesthetist but also as a neurosurgeon and neurologist. With the focus on functional and minimally invasive procedures, there is an increased emphasis on the provision of optimal operative conditions, preservation of neurocognitive function, minimizing interference with electrophysiological monitoring, and a rapid, high-quality recovery. Small craniotomies, intraoperative imaging, stereotactic interventions, and endoscopic procedures increase surgical precision and minimize trauma to normal tissues. The result should be quicker recovery, minimal perioperative morbidity, and reduced hospital stay. One of the peculiarities of neuroanaesthesia has always been that as much importance is attached to wakening the patient as sending them to sleep. With the increasing popularity of awake craniotomies, there is even more emphasis on this skill. However, despite high-quality anaesthetic research and advances in drugs and monitoring modalities, many controversies remain regarding best clinical practice. This review will discuss some of the current controversies in elective neurosurgical practice, future perspectives, and the place of awake craniotomies in the armamentarium of the neuroanaesthetist.

Inhalational or intravenous anesthetics for craniotomies? Pro inhalational

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In neurosurgery, anesthesiologists and surgeons focus on the same target - the brain. The nature of anesthetics is to interact with brain physiology, leading to favorable and adverse effects. Research in neuroanesthesia over the last three decades has been dedicated to identifying the optimal anesthetic agent to maintain coupling between cerebral blood flow and metabolism, keep cerebrovascular autoregulation intact, and not increase cerebral blood volume and intracranial pressure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Sevoflurane is less vasoactive than halothane, enflurane, isoflurane, or desflurane. The context sensitive half-life is short and similar to that of desflurane, which translates into fast on and offset. Compared with propofol, sevoflurane decreases cerebral blood flow to a lesser extent, while cerebral metabolism is suppressed to the same degree. Sevoflurane does not increase intracranial pressure, while propofol decreases intracranial pressure.

SUMMARY

In neurosurgical patients with normal intracranial pressure, sevoflurane might be a good alternative to propofol. In patients with reduced intracranial elastance, caused by space occupying lesions, with elevated intracranial pressure or complex surgical approaches, propofol should remain first choice.