Asleep-awake-asleep versus hypnosis for low-grade glioma surgery: long term follow-up outcome.

BACKGROUND: Hypnosis-aided craniotomy is a safe alternative to standard asleep-awake-asleep (AAA) surgery in glioma surgery. The impact of these two anesthetic methods on tumor prognosis has never been assessed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the possible impact of the type of sedation (i.e., hypnosedation vs. standard sedation) on postoperative outcomes in awake surgery for gliomas. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent awake surgery for a diffuse glioma, excluding glioblastomas, between May 2011 and December 2019 at the authors' institution were included in the analysis. Pearson Chi-square, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for inferential analyses. RESULTS: Sixty-one (61) patients were included, thirty-one were female (50.8 %), and the mean age was 41.8 years (SD = 11.88). Most patients had IDH mutated tumors (n = 51; 83.6%). Twenty-six patients (42.6%) were hypnosedated while 35 (57.4%) received standard AAA procedure. The overall median follow-up time was 48 months (range: 10 months-120 months). Our results did not identify any significant difference between both techniques in terms of extent of resection (sub-total resection >95% rates were 11.48% vs. 8.20%, OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 0.62-8.44; P = 0.34) and of overall survival (87.5% of patients in the AAA surgery group reach 9 years OS vs. 79% in the hypnosis cohort, cHR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.12-6.04; P = 0.87). CONCLUSION: Hypnosis for awake craniotomy is rarely proposed although it is a suitable alternative to standard sedation in awake craniotomy for LGGs, with similar results in terms of extent of resection or survival.

Health systems strengthening, dissemination, and implementation science in Africa: quo vadis?

Implementing health-system strengthening policies remains a challenge in Africa. Past successes, predictable but unanticipated flaws, underutilization of health services, traditional medicine, global inequity and poor practice by local stakeholders are some of the reasons many African countries have made little progress towards attaining global health goals. As a result, Africa has the highest disease burden despite multiple efforts from the global health community. These raise the question: what has to change so that health systems strengthening efforts in Africa are successful?