RESUMO
OBJECT: The authors assessed the feasibility, anatomical accuracy, and cost effectiveness of frameless electromagnetic (EM) neuronavigation in conjunction with portable intraoperative CT (iCT) registration for transsphenoidal adenomectomy (TSA). METHODS: A prospective database was established for data obtained in 208 consecutive patients who underwent TSA in which the iCT/EM navigation technique was used. Data were compared with those acquired in a retrospective cohort of 65 consecutive patients in whom fluoroscope-assisted TSA had been performed by the same surgeon. All patients in both groups underwent transnasal removal of pituitary adenomas or neuroepithelial cysts, using identical surgical techniques with an operating microscope. In the iCT/EM technique-treated cases, a portable iCT scan was obtained immediately prior to surgery for registration to the EM navigation system, which did not require rigid head fixation. Preexisting (nonnavigation protocol) MR imaging studies were fused with the iCT scans to enable 3D navigation based on MR imaging data. The accuracy of the navigation system was determined in the first 50 iCT/EM cases by visual concordance of the navigation probe location to 5 preselected bony landmarks. For all patients in both cohorts, total operating room time, incision-to-closure time, and relative costs of imaging and surgical procedures were determined from hospital records. RESULTS: In every case, iCT registration was successful and preoperative MR images were fused to iCT scans without affecting navigation accuracy. There was 100% concordance between probe tip location and predetermined bony loci in the first 50 cases involving the iCT/EM technique. Total operating room time was significantly less in the iCT/EM cases (mean 108.9 ± 24.3 minutes [208 patients]) compared with the fluoroscopy group (mean 121.1 ± 30.7 minutes [65 patients]; p < 0.001). Similarly, incision-to-closure time was significantly less for the iCT/EM cases (mean 61.3 ± 18.2 minutes) than for the fluoroscopy cases (mean 71.75 ± 19.0 minutes; p < 0.001). Relative overall costs for iCT/EM technique and intraoperative C-arm fluoroscopy were comparable; increased costs for navigation equipment were offset by savings in operating room costs for shorter procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The use of iCT/MR imaging-guided neuronavigation for transsphenoidal surgery is a time-effective, cost-efficient, safe, and technically beneficial technique.
Assuntos
Neuronavegação/métodos , Hipófise/cirurgia , Osso Esfenoide/cirurgia , Cirurgia Assistida por Computador/métodos , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X/métodos , Adenoma/cirurgia , Cistos Coloides , Análise Custo-Benefício , Bases de Dados Factuais , Humanos , Hidrocefalia/cirurgia , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Neoplasias Neuroepiteliomatosas/cirurgia , Neuronavegação/economia , Neoplasias Hipofisárias/cirurgia , Estudos Prospectivos , Cirurgia Assistida por Computador/economia , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X/economiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The American Stroke Association (ASA) assembled a multidisciplinary group of experts to develop recommendations regarding the potential effectiveness of establishing an identification program for stroke centers and systems. "Identification" refers to the full spectrum of models for assessing and recognizing standards of quality care (self-assessment, verification, certification, and accreditation). A primary consideration is whether stroke center identification might improve patient outcomes. METHODS: In February 2001, ASA, with the support of the Stroke Council's Executive Committee, decided to embark on an evaluation of the potential impact of stroke center identification. HealthPolicy R&D was selected to prepare a comprehensive report. The investigators reported on models outside the area of stroke, ongoing initiatives within the stroke community (such as Operation Stroke), and state and federal activities designed to improve care for stroke patients. The investigators also conducted interviews with thought leaders in the stroke community, representing a diverse sampling of specialties and affiliations. In October 2001, the Advisory Working Group on Stroke Center Identification developed its consensus recommendations. This group included recognized experts in neurology, emergency medicine, emergency medical services, neurological surgery, neurointensive care, vascular disease, and stroke program planning. RESULTS: There are a variety of existing identification programs, generally falling within 1 of 4 categories (self-assessment, verification, certification, and accreditation) along a continuum with respect to intensity and scope of review and consumption of resources. Ten programs were evaluated, including Peer Review Organizations, trauma centers, and new efforts by the National Committee on Quality Assurance and the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations to identify providers and disease management programs. The largest body of literature on clinical outcomes associated with identification programs involves trauma centers. Most studies support that trauma centers and systems lead to improved mortality rates and patient outcomes. The Advisory Working Group felt that comparison to the trauma model was most relevant given the need for urgent evaluation and treatment of stroke. The literature in other areas generally supports the positive impact of identification programs, although patient outcomes data have less often been published. In the leadership interviews, participants generally expressed strong support for pursuing some form of voluntary identification program, although concerns were raised that this effort could meet with some resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of stroke centers and stroke systems competencies is in the best interest of stroke patients in the United States, and ASA should support the development and implementation of such processes. The purpose of a stroke center/systems identification program is to increase the capacity for all hospitals to treat stroke patients according to standards of care, recognizing that levels of involvement will vary according to the resources of hospitals and systems.