Future Advances in Neurolaryngology.

Neurolaryngology as a subspecialty of laryngology has developed considerably in the last four decades with more laryngologists, neurologists, speech and swallow therapists, and neurophysiologists taking interest in the field. The North American and Japanese laryngology societies have increasingly focused on conditions which are mainly concerned with aberrations of the nervous system affecting the larynx directly or indirectly. In the last few years, societies in Europe and the Asia-Pacific have also recognized the need to collaborate both within their organizations and with other societies globally. Cross-border pollination of ideas has increasingly become easier and with the aid of technology - almost seamless with real-time capacity to share operating experience, lectures, and panel discussions. The future advances in neurolaryngology will require incremental improvements in processes of diagnostics, objectivization (where possible) of pathology, standardization of treatments with comparison of results using accepted patient-based tests, investigations and imaging where possible. Ultimately, from the contributions in the previous chapters, it is fairly obvious that many conditions are still poorly understood and therefore management becomes more symptom based rather than dealing with the root cause of the problem. An understanding of the physiology of vocalization, swallow, and breathing beyond a rudimentary acceptance of many towards the vagus nerve and other neural factors may help understand what has otherwise been a rather simplistic approach to one of the most complex parts of the human body, essential to life and equally important - the quality of life. In this chapter, we aim to look at where advances in neurolaryngology may and perhaps will take place. We will look at the potential of better imaging modalities, neurophysiological testing and physiology of the brain. Tests and treatments currently in use may require some refinements or be possibly abandoned and replaced with more effective ones that can demonstrate a difference in the management of various patient groups. The future is hard to predict, and the rate of advancement equally so, but given the rate at which information technology, artificial intelligence, and basic science research are progressing, neurolaryngology may indeed have its welcome boost in the not too distant future.

Intracranial Pressure and Intracranial Elastance Monitoring in Neurocritical Care.

Patients with acute brain injuries tend to be physiologically unstable and at risk of rapid and potentially life-threatening decompensation due to shifts in intracranial compartment volumes and consequent intracranial hypertension. Invasive intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring therefore remains a cornerstone of modern neurocritical care, despite the attendant risks of infection and damage to brain tissue arising from the surgical placement of a catheter or pressure transducer into the cerebrospinal fluid or brain tissue compartments. In addition to ICP monitoring, tracking of the intracranial capacity to buffer shifts in compartment volumes would help in the assessment of patient state, inform clinical decision making, and guide therapeutic interventions. We review the anatomy, physiology, and current technology relevant to clinical management of patients with acute brain injury and outline unmet clinical needs to advance patient monitoring in neurocritical care.

EOY summary 2018.

Clinical monitoring and technology are at the heart of anesthesiology, and new technological developments will help to define how anesthesiology will evolve as a profession. Anesthesia related research published in the JCMC in 2018 mainly pertained to ICU sedation with inhaled agents, anesthesia workstation technology, and monitoring of different aspects of depth of anesthesia.

Twenty-Five Years of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring After Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Retrospective, Single-Center Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial pressure (ICP) is a clinically important variable after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and has been monitored, along with clinical outcome, for over 25 yr in Addenbrooke's hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom. This time period has also seen changes in management strategies with the implementation of protocolled specialist neurocritical care, expansion of neuromonitoring techniques, and adjustments of clinical treatment targets. OBJECTIVE: To describe the changes in intracranial monitoring variables over the past 25 yr. METHODS: Data from 1146 TBI patients requiring ICP monitoring were analyzed. Monitored variables included ICP, cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), and the cerebral pressure reactivity index (PRx). Data were stratified into 5-yr epochs spanning the 25 yr from 1992 to 2017. RESULTS: CPP increased sharply with specialist neurocritical care management (P < 0.0001) (introduction of a specific TBI management algorithm) before stabilizing from 2000 onwards. ICP decreased significantly over the 25 yr of monitoring from an average of 19 to 12 mmHg (P < 0.0001) but PRx remained unchanged. The mean number of ICP plateau waves and the number of patients developing refractory intracranial hypertension both decreased significantly. Mortality did not significantly change in the cohort (22%). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the evolving trends in neurophysiological monitoring over the past 25 yr from a single, academic neurocritical care unit. ICP and CPP were responsive to the introduction of an ICP/CPP protocol while PRx has remained unchanged.

Trends in intracranial monitoring for pediatric medically intractable epilepsy: 2000-2012.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively examine nationwide trends in intracranial monitoring (ICM) for pediatric medically intractable epilepsy (MIE) from 2000 to 2012. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Kids' Inpatient Database was analyzed to identify admissions with ICD-9-CM codes corresponding to MIE and ICM from 2000 to 2012, inclusive. Associations between independent variables and outcomes were tested using χ2 test or Fisher exact test. A multivariate logistic regression analysis of variables associated with ICM was completed using stepwise selection. The Cochran-Armitage test was used to test for trend of a variable over the study period. RESULTS: The number of ICM procedures increased over the study period; however, secondary to large increases in the number of MIE admissions, the rate of ICM declined from 5.39% in 2000 to 2.56% in 2012 (p < 0.001). Despite this decline, ICM increasingly resulted in resective epilepsy procedures. In 2000, only 45.18% of ICM cases led to resective epilepsy surgery, which increased to 75.83% by 2012 (p < 0.001). ICM complication rates were comparable to, if not lower than, standard resective surgery. Disparities in access to ICM exist, with African American individuals and those with Medicaid significantly less likely to undergo ICM. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide characterization of pediatric ICM trends, we identified a slight, significant downward trend in the rate of utilization of ICM for MIE. This was secondary to substantial increases in the number of hospital admissions for MIE. Reasons for this large increase and why it has not led to increased rates of ICM warrant further investigation.

Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Infants and Young Children With Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of intracranial pressure monitors and treatment for elevated intracranial pressure in children 24 months old or younger with traumatic brain injury in North Carolina between April 2009 and March 2012 and compare this with a similar cohort recruited 2000-2001. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study. SETTING: Twelve PICUs in North Carolina. PATIENTS: All children 24 months old or younger with traumatic brain injury, admitted to an included PICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: The use of intracranial pressure monitors and treatments for elevated intracranial pressure were evaluated in 238 children with traumatic brain injury. Intracranial pressure monitoring (risk ratio, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.5-9.3) and intracranial pressure therapies were more common in children with Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8 compared with Glasgow Coma Scale greater than 8. However, only 17% of children with Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8 received a monitoring device. Treatments for elevated intracranial pressure were more common in children with monitors; yet, some children without monitors received therapies traditionally used to lower intracranial pressure. Unadjusted predictors of monitoring were Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8, receipt of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, nonwhite race. Logistic regression showed no strong predictors of intracranial pressure monitor use. Compared with the 2000 cohort, children in the 2010 cohort with Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8 were less likely to receive monitoring (risk ratio, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-1.0), although the estimate was not precise, or intracranial pressure management therapies. CONCLUSION: Children in the 2010 cohort with a Glasgow Coma Scale less than or equal to 8 were less likely to receive an intracranial pressure monitor or hyperosmolar therapy than children in the 2000 cohort; however, about 10% of children without monitors received therapies to decrease intracranial pressure. This suggests treatment heterogeneity in children 24 months old or younger with traumatic brain injury and a need for better evidence to support treatment recommendations for this group of children.

The International Multi-disciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring: future directions and emerging technologies.

Neuromonitoring has evolved rapidly in recent years and there now are many new monitors that have revealed a great deal about the ongoing pathophysiology of brain injury and coma. Further evolution will include the consolidation of multi-modality monitoring (MMM), the development of next-generation informatics tools to identify complex physiologic events and decision support tools to permit targeted individualized care. In this review, we examine future directions and emerging technologies in neuromonitoring including: (1) device development, (2) what is the current limitation(s) of MMM in its present format(s), (3) what would improve the ability of MMM to enhance neurocritical care, and (4) how do we develop evidence for use of MMM?