No abstract

No abstract

Background: The retrosigmoid approach represents a crucial surgical route to address different lesions in the cerebellopontine angle but cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak still remains the most frequent complication after this approach. Here, we analyzed the impact of different factors in CSF leak development after a retrosigmoid approach. Identifying risk factors related to a specific approach may help the surgeon to tailor the perioperative management and to appropriately counsel patients regarding their risk profile. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical, surgical, and outcome data of 103 consecutive patients (M/F, 47/56; mean follow-up 35.6 ± 23.9 months) who underwent a retrosigmoid approach for different cerebellopontine angle pathologies and studied the impact of different factors on the occurrence of a CSF leak to univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: Seventy-nine patients (76.7%) were operated for tumors growing in the cerebellopontine angle. Twenty-four patients (23.2%) underwent microvascular decompression to treat a drug-resistant trigeminal neuralgia. Sixteen patients (15.5%) developed CSF leak in the postoperative course of which six underwent surgical revision. Performing a craniectomy as surgical procedure (P = 0.0450) and performing a reopening procedure (second surgery; P = 0.0079) were significantly associated to a higher risk of developing CSF leak. Moreover, performing a reopening procedure emerged as an independent factor for CSF developing on multivariate analysis (P = 0.0156). Conclusion: Patients submitted to craniectomy and patients who underwent a second surgery showed an higher CSF leak rate. Ongoing improvement of biomaterial technology may help neurosurgeons to prevent this potentially life-threatening complication.

Background In critically ill patients continuous EEG (cEEG) is recommended in several conditions. Recently, a new wireless EEG headset (CerebAir®,Nihon-Kohden) is available. It has 8 electrodes, and its positioning seems to be easier than conventional systems. Aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of this device for cEEG monitoring, if positioned by ICU physician. Methods Neurological patients were divided in two groups according with the admission to Neuro-ICU (Study-group:20 patients) or General-ICU (Control-group:20 patients). In Study group, cEEG was recorded by CerebAir® assembled by an ICU physician, while in Control group a simplified 8-electrodes-EEG recording positioned by an EEG technician was performed. Results Time for electrodes applying was shorter in Study-group than in Control-group: 6.2 ± 1.1′ vs 10.4 ± 2.3′; p < 0.0001. Thirty five interventions were necessary to correct artifacts in Study-group and 11 in Control-group. EEG abnormalities with or without epileptic meaning were respectively 7(35%) and 7(35%) in Study-group, and 5(25%) and 9(45%) in Control-group;p > 0.05. In Study-group, cEEG was interrupted for risk of skin lesions in 4 cases after 52 ± 4 h. cEEG was obtained without EEG technician in all cases in Study-group; quality of EEG was similar. Conclusions Although several limitations should be considered, this simplified EEG system could be feasible even if EEG technician was not present. It was faster to position if compared with standard techniques, and can be used for continuous EEG monitoring. It could be very useful as part of diagnostic process in an emergency setting.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract