Object Glioma resection under conscious (“awake”) sedation (CS) is used for eloquent areas of the brain to minimize postoperative neurological deficits. The objective of this study was to compare the duration of hospital stay, overall hospital cost, perioperative morbidity, and postoperative patient functional status in patients whose gliomas were resected using CS versus general endotracheal anesthesia (GEA). Methods Twenty-two cases in 20 patients who underwent surgery for cerebral gliomas under CS and a matched cohort of 22 cases in 19 patients who underwent surgery under GEA over a 3-year period were retrospectively evaluated. Criteria for inclusion in the study were as follows: 1) a single cerebral lesion; 2) gross-total resection as evidenced by postoperative Gd-enhanced MR imaging within 48 hours of surgery; 3) a WHO Grade II, III, or IV glioma; 4) a supratentorial lesion location; 5) a Karnofsky Performance Scale score ≥ 70; 6) an operation performed by the same neurosurgeon; and 7) an elective procedure. Results The average hospital stay was significantly different between the 2 groups: 3.5 days for patients who underwent CS and 4.6 days for those who underwent GEA. This result translated into a significant decrease in the average inpatient cost after intensive care unit (ICU) care for the CS group compared with the GEA group. Other variables were not significantly different. Conclusions Patients undergoing glioma resection using CS techniques have a significantly shorter hospital stay with reduced inpatient hospital expenses after postoperative ICU care.

Patients rank postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the top five most undesirable outcomes of surgery. Thirty percent of all surgical patients experience PONV. We conducted an economic study to determine the financial implications of providing surgical patients with PONV prophylaxis to increase patient satisfaction and minimize postoperative complications. Our main objective was to develop an economic model of PONV prophylaxis. We retrospectively reviewed all surgical cases who received care at our institution from June 2005 to June 2007 in which the surgical patient was billed for treatment of nausea and vomiting while in the hospital. The PONV risk factors for these patients were assessed as well as the revenue stream associated with those patients who returned to the hospital within 5 days with nausea and vomiting as their chief complaint. Of the total number of medical charts reviewed (56,532), 28 (1.57%) of 1783 patients who were billed for PONV while in the hospital returned to the hospital with PONV. The total billable charges for PONV for these returning patients were $83,674; the total reimbursements were $25,816 yielding a 31% reimbursement rate. The total hospital expenses were $24,123 yielding a net hospital profit of $1693 for treating these 28 patients. The average hospital cost and charge per antiemetic drug dose was $0.304 and $3.66, respectively. Using these figures, we determined that our hospital's net profit increases linearly with increased PONV prophylaxis administration. Our economic analysis shows that PONV prophylaxis is economically beneficial for the hospital when weighed against the expenses generated by treating patients returning to the hospital with PONV.

IntroductionPostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is among the most common distressing complications of surgery under anesthesia. Previous studies have demonstrated that patients who undergo craniotomy have incidences of nausea and vomiting as high as 50–70%. The main purpose of this pilot study is to assess the incidence of PONV by using two different prophylactic regimens in subjects undergoing a craniotomy. Thus, we designed this study to assess the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with the combination of dexamethasone, promethazine, and aprepitant versus ondansetron to reduce the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing craniotomy.Materials and methodsThis is a prospective, single center, two-armed, randomized, double-dummy, double-blind, pilot study. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups. Subjects received 40 mg of aprepitant pill (or matching placebo pill) 30–60 min before induction of anesthesia and 4 mg of ondansetron IV (or 2 ml of placebo saline solution) at induction of anesthesia. In addition, all subjects received 25 mg of promethazine IV and 10 mg of dexamethasone IV at induction of anesthesia. Assessments of PONV commenced for the first 24 h after surgery and were subsequently assessed for up to 5 days.ResultsThe overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery was 31.0% (n = 15) in the aprepitant group and 36.2% (n = 17) for the ondansetron group. The median times to first emetic and significant nausea episodes were 7.6 (2.9, 48.7) and 14.3 (4.4, 30.7) hours, respectively, for the aprepitant group and 6.0 (2.2, 29.5) and 9.6 (0.7, 35.2) hours, respectively, for the ondansetron group. There were no statistically significant differences between these groups. No adverse events directly related to study medications were found.ConclusionThis pilot study showed similar effectiveness when comparing the two PONV prophylaxis regimens. Our data showed that both treatments could be effective regimens to prevent PONV in patients undergoing craniotomy under general anesthesia. Future trials testing new PONV prophylaxis regimens in this surgical population should be performed to gain a better understanding of how to best provide prophylactic treatment.

Both awake craniotomy under conscious sedation and use of intraoperative MRI can increase the efficiency and safety of glioma resections. In contrast to craniotomies under general anesthesia, neurosurgery under conscious sedation requires several changes to the routine operative setup when performed in the ioMRI environment. This work reports our experience with awake craniotomies under conscious sedation using ioMRI. Seven patients underwent awake-craniotomies for resection of supratentorial gliomas using ioMRI at the Ohio State University Medical Center and James Cancer Hospital by a single surgeon. ioMRI can be safely employed in patients who are undergoing craniotomies under conscious sedation. Particularly important is the evaluation by the anesthesiologist whether the patient is a good candidate to sustain a likely longer than average procedure in a setting where his active cooperation is not only required, but also the essential aspect of this procedure.