Perioperative Care and Outcomes of Patients with Brain Tumors Undergoing Elective Craniotomy: Experience from an Ethiopian Tertiary-Care Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To describe patients, perioperative care, and outcomes undergoing supratentorial and infratentorial craniotomy for brain tumor resection in a tertiary-care hospital in Ethiopia. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients consecutively admitted between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021, was performed. We characterized patients, perioperative care, and outcomes. RESULTS: The final sample comprised 153 patients; 144 (94%) were 18 years and over, females (n = 48, 55%) with primarily American Society of Anesthesiologists physical class II (n = 97, 63.4%) who underwent supratentorial (n = 114, 75%), or infratentorial (n = 39, 25%) tumor resection. Patients were routinely admitted (95%) to floor/wards before craniotomy; Inhaled anesthetic (isoflurane 88%/halothane 12%) was used for maintenance of general anesthesia. Propofol (n = 93, 61%), mannitol (n = 73, 48%), and cerebrospinal fluid drain (n = 28, 18%), were used to facilitate intraoperative brain relaxation, while the use of hyperventilation was rare (n = 1). The average estimated blood loss was 1040 ± 727 ml; 37 (24%) patients received tranexamic acid, and 57 (37%) received a blood transfusion. Factors associated with extubation were a) infratentorial tumor location: relative risk (RR) 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.69), preoperative hydrocephalus: RR 0.51, (95% CI 0.34-0.79), shorter total anesthesia duration: 277.8 + 8.8 versus 426.77 + 13.1 minutes, P < 0.0001, lower estimated blood loss: 897 + 68 ml versus 1361.7 + 100 ml, P = 0.0002, and cerebrospinal fluid drainage to facilitate brain relaxation: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.84). Approximately one in ten patients experienced postoperative obstructive hydrocephalus, surgical site infections, or pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that certain factors may impact patient outcomes following craniotomy for tumor resection. By identifying these factors, health care providers may be better equipped to develop individualized treatment plans and improve patient outcomes. Additionally, the study highlights the importance of postoperative monitoring and management to prevent complications.

Differences in Perioperative Management of Patients Undergoing Complex Spine Surgery: A Global Perspective.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this survey was to understand institutional spine surgery practices and their concordance with published best practices/recommendations. METHODS: Using a global internet-based survey examining perioperative spine surgery practice, reported institutional spine pathway elements (n=139) were compared with the level of evidence published in guideline recommendations. The concordance of clinical practice with guidelines was categorized as poor (≤20%), fair (21%-40%), moderate (41%-60%), good (61%-80%), or very good (81%-100%). RESULTS: Seventy-two of 409 (17.6%) institutional contacts started the survey, of which 31 (7.6%) completed the survey. Six (19.4%) of the completed surveys were from respondents in low/middle-income countries, and 25 (80.6%) were from respondents in high-income countries. Forty-one incomplete surveys were not included in the final analysis, as most were less than 40% complete. Five of 139 (3.6%) reported elements had very good concordance for the entire cohort; hospitals with spine surgery pathways reported 18 elements with very good concordance, whereas institutions without spine surgery pathways reported only 1 element with very good concordance. Reported spine pathways included between 7 and 47 separate pathway elements. There were 87 unique elements in the reviewed pathways. Only 3 of 87 (3.4%) elements with high-quality evidence demonstrated very good practice concordance. CONCLUSIONS: This global survey-based study identified practice variation and low adoption rates of high-quality evidence in the care of patients undergoing complex spine surgery.