Consensus-based perioperative protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Neurosurgical Transfers: A Single Tertiary Center Study

OBJECTIVE

Interfacility transfers represent a large proportion of neurosurgical admissions to tertiary care centers each year. In this study, the authors examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of transfers, timing of transfers, demographic profile of transfer patients, and clinical outcomes including rates of surgical intervention.

METHODS

A retrospective review of neurosurgical transfer patients at a single tertiary center was performed. Patients transferred from April to November 2020 (the "COVID Era") were compared with an institutional database of transfer patients collected before the COVID-19 pandemic (the "Pre-COVID Era"). During the COVID Era, both emergent and nonemergent neurosurgical services had resumed. A comparison of demographic and clinical factors between the 2 cohorts was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 674 patients were included in the study (331 Pre-COVID and 343 COVID-Era patients). Overall, there was no change in the average monthly number of transfers (P = 0.66) or in the catchment area of referral hospitals. However, COVID-Era patients were more likely to be uninsured (1% vs. 4%), had longer transfer times (COVID vs. Pre-COVID Era: 18 vs. 9 hours; P < 0.001), required higher rates of surgical intervention (63% vs. 50%, P = 0.001), had higher rates of spine pathology (17% vs. 10%), and less frequently were admitted to the intensive care unit (34% vs. 52%, P < 0.001). Overall, COVID-Era patients did not experience delays to surgical intervention (3.1 days vs. 3.6 days, P = 0.2). When analyzing the subgroup of COVID-Era patients, COVID infection status did not impact the time of transfer or rates of operation, although COVID-infected patients experienced a longer time to surgery after admission (14 vs. 2.9 days, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic did not reduce the number of monthly transfers, operation rates, or catchment area for transfer patients. Transfer rates of uninsured patients increased during the COVID Era, potentially reflecting changes in access to community neurosurgery care. Shorter time to surgery seen in COVID-Era patients possibly reflects institutional policies that improved operating room efficiency to compensate for surgical backlogs. COVID status affeted time to surgery, reflecting the preoperative care that these patients require before intervention.

Impact on neurosurgical management in a Level 1 trauma center post COVID-19 shelter-in-place restrictions

The stringent restrictions from shelter-in-place (SIP) policies placed on hospital operations during the COVID-19 pandemic led to a sharp decrease in planned surgical procedures. This study quantifies the surgical rebound experienced across a neurosurgical service post SIP restrictions in order to guide future hospital programs with resource management. We conducted a retrospective review of all neurosurgical procedures at a public Level 1 trauma center between February 15th to August 30th for the years spanning 2018-2020. We categorized patient procedures into four comparative one-month periods: pre-SIP; SIP; post-SIP; and late recovery. Patient procedures were designated as either cranial; spinal; and other; as well as Elective or Add-on (Urgent/Emergent). Categorical variables were analyzed using χ2 tests and Fisher's exact tests. A total of 347 cases were reviewed across the four comparative periods and three years studied; with 174 and 152 spinal and cranial procedures; respectively. There was a proportional increase; relative to historical controls; in total spinal procedures (p-value < 0.001) and elective spinal procedures (p-value < 0.001) in the 2020 SIP to Post-SIP. The doubling of elective spinal cases in the Post-SIP period returned to historical baseline levels in three months after SIP restrictions were lifted. Total cranial procedures were proportionally increased during the SIP period relative to historical controls (p-value = 0.005). We provide a census on the post-pandemic neurosurgical operative demands at a major public Level 1 trauma hospital, which can potentially be applied for resource allocations in other disaster scenarios.

Awake craniotomy for glioblastoma in COVID-19–positive patients and delivering the standard of care: illustrative case

BACKGROUND

Providing the standard of care to patients with glioblastoma (GBM) during the novel coronavirus of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a challenge, particularly if a patient tests positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Further difficulties occur in eloquent cortex tumors because awake speech mapping can theoretically aerosolize viral particles and expose staff. Moreover, microscopic neurosurgery has become difficult because the use of airborne-level personal protective equipment (PPE) crowds the space between the surgeon and the eyepiece. However, delivering substandard care will inevitably lead to disease progression and poor outcomes.

OBSERVATIONS

A 60-year-old man with a left insular and frontal operculum GBM was found to be COVID-19 positive. Treatment was postponed pending a negative SARS-CoV-2 result, but in the interim, he developed intratumoral hemorrhage with progressive expressive aphasia. Because the tumor was causing dominant hemisphere language symptomatology, an awake craniotomy was the recommended surgical approach. With the use of airborne-level PPE and a surgical drape to protect the surgeon from the direction of potential aerosolization, near-total gross resection was achieved.

LESSONS

Delaying the treatment of patients with GBM who test positive for COVID-19 will lead to further neurological deterioration. Optimal and timely treatment such as awake speech mapping for COVID-19–positive patients with GBM can be provided safely.