Consensus-based recommendations for diagnosis and surgical management of cranioplasty and post-traumatic hydrocephalus from a European panel.

Introduction: Planning cranioplasty (CPL) in patients with suspected or proven post-traumatic hydrocephalus (PTH) poses a significant management challenge due to a lack of clear guidance. Research question: This project aims to create a European document to improve adherence and adapt to local protocols based on available resources and national health systems. Methods: After a thorough non-systematic review, a steering committee (SC) formed a European expert panel (EP) for a two-round questionnaire using the Delphi method. The questionnaire employed a 9-point Likert scale to assess the appropriateness of statements inherent to two sections: "Diagnostic criteria for PTH" and "Surgical strategies for PTH and cranial reconstruction." Results: The panel reached a consensus on 29 statements. In the "Diagnostic criteria for PTH" section, five statements were deemed "appropriate" (consensus 74.2-90.3 %), two were labeled "inappropriate," and seven were marked as "uncertain."In the "Surgical strategies for PTH and cranial reconstruction" section, four statements were considered "appropriate" (consensus 74.2-90.4 %), six were "inappropriate," and five were "uncertain." Discussion and conclusion: Planning a cranioplasty alongside hydrocephalus remains a significant challenge in neurosurgery. Our consensus conference suggests that, in patients with cranial decompression and suspected hydrocephalus, the most suitable diagnostic approach involves a combination of evolving clinical conditions and neuroradiological imaging. The recommended management sequence prioritizes cranial reconstruction, with the option of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt when needed, preferably with a programmable valve. We strongly recommend to adopt local protocols based on expert consensus, such as this, to guide patient care.

Appraisal of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of Antithrombotic Therapy in Elective Spinal Procedures: Do We AGREE (II)?

The perioperative management of patients medicated with antithrombotic agents who require elective spinal surgery is extremely challenging because of the increased risk of surgical bleeding and the concurrent need to minimize the thromboembolic risk. The aims of the present systematic review are to: (1) identify clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and recommendations (CPRs) on this topic and (2) assess their methodological quality and reporting clarity. An electronic systematic search of the English Medical Literature up to January 31, 2021 was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Two raters assessed the methodological quality and reporting clarity of the gathered CPGs and CPRs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. The agreement between the two raters was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Of the initially gathered 38 CPGs and CPRs, 16 fulfilled our eligibility criteria and were evaluated using the AGREE II instrument. The reports published by "Narouze 2018" and "Fleisher 2014" were scored as being of "high-quality" and having an adequate interrater agreement (Cohen's kappa ≥0.60). Overall, the AGREE II domains of "clarity of presentation" and "scope and purpose" yielded the highest scores (100%), whereas the domain "stakeholder involvement" scored the lowest score (48.5%). The perioperative management of antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents in elective spine surgery may be challenging. Because of the lack of high-quality data in this field, uncertainty remains regarding the optimal practices to balance the risk of thromboembolism against that of bleeding.

Multimodal Analgesia in Spine Surgery: An Umbrella Review.

OBJECTIVE: In recent years, there has been a growing interest regarding the implementation of multimodal analgesia as an important component of the ideal perioperative patient management. The aim of the current umbrella review was to establish the role of multimodal analgesia in patients undergoing spine surgery during the immediate postoperative period. METHODS: A systematic review of the pertinent literature was performed. The evaluation was based on a multitude of primary endpoints including the postoperative requirements for patient-controlled analgesia, pain intensity, back-related disability, overall functionality, patient satisfaction, complications, length of hospitalization, and costs. RESULTS: The results were summarized using a meta-analysis in the presence of quantitative data or in a narrative review, otherwise. There was a large body of high-quality evidence supporting that the implementation of multimodal analgesia improves patient outcome in terms of the intensity of postoperative pain, the requirements for postoperative opioid analgesia, and the opioid-associated side effects. Similarly, limited high-quality evidence supported that multimodal analgesia improved patients' functionality and satisfaction while decreasing the length of hospitalization and overall costs of surgery. However, the results were inconclusive as far as the disability was concerned. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal analgesia seems to have an essential role for the optimal management of patients undergoing spine surgery. Future research is required to optimize the multimodal analgesia protocols in this group of patients.