Moderate-to-severe pain following neurosurgery is common but often does not get attention and is therefore underdiagnosed and undertreated. Compounding this problem is the traditional belief that neurosurgical pain is inconsequential and even dangerous to treat. Concerns about problematic effects associated with opioid analgesics such as nausea, vomiting, oversedation, and increased intracranial pressure secondary to elevated carbon dioxide tension from respiratory depression have often led to suboptimal postoperative analgesic strategies in caring for neurosurgical patients. Neurosurgical patients may have difficulty or be incapable of communicating their need for analgesics due to neurologic deficits, which poses an additional challenge. Postoperative pain control should be a priority, because pain adversely affects recovery and patient outcomes. Inconsistent practices and the quality of current analgesic strategies for neurosurgical patients still leave room for improvement. Given the complexity of postoperative pain management for these patients, multimodal strategies are often required to optimize pain control and at the same time limit undesired side effects.

BackgroundPostoperative delirium can result in increased postoperative morbidity and mortality, major demand for postoperative care and higher hospital costs. Hypnotics serve to induce and maintain anaesthesia and to abolish patients' consciousness. Their persisting clinical action can delay postoperative cognitive recovery and favour postoperative delirium. Some evidence suggests that these unwanted effects vary according to each hypnotic's specific pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics and its interaction with the individual patient.We designed this study to evaluate postoperative delirium rate after general anaesthesia with various hypnotics in patients undergoing surgical procedures other than cardiac or brain surgery. We also aimed to test whether delayed postoperative cognitive recovery increases the risk of postoperative delirium.Methods/DesignAfter local ethics committee approval, enrolled patients will be randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups. In all patients anaesthesia will be induced with propofol and fentanyl, and maintained with the anaesthetics desflurane, or sevoflurane, or propofol and the analgesic opioid fentanyl.The onset of postoperative delirium will be monitored with the Nursing Delirium Scale every three hours up to 72 hours post anaesthesia. Cognitive function will be evaluated with two cognitive test batteries (the Short Memory Orientation Memory Concentration Test and the Rancho Los Amigos Scale) preoperatively, at baseline, and postoperatively at 20, 40 and 60 min after extubation.Statistical analysis will investigate differences in the hypnotics used to maintain anaesthesia and the odds ratios for postoperative delirium, the relation of early postoperative cognitive recovery and postoperative delirium rate. A subgroup analysis will be used to categorize patients according to demographic variables relevant to the risk of postoperative delirium (age, sex, body weight) and to the preoperative score index for delirium.DiscussionThe results of this comparative anaesthesiological trial should whether each the three hypnotics tested is related to a significantly different postoperative delirium rate. This information could ultimately allow us to select the most appropriate hypnotic to maintain anaesthesia for specific subgroups of patients and especially for those at high risk of postoperative delirium.Registered at Trial.gov NumberClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00507195

Various clinical trials have assessed how intraoperative anesthetics can affect early recovery, hemodynamics and nociception after supratentorial craniotomy. Whether or not the difference in recovery pattern differs in a meaningful way with anesthetic choice is controversial. This review examines and compares different anesthetics with respect to wake-up time, hemodynamics, respiration, cognitive recovery, pain, nausea and vomiting, and shivering. When comparing inhalational anesthetics to intravenous anesthetics, either regimen produces similar recovery results. Newer shorter acting agents accelerate the process of emergence and extubation. A balanced inhalational/intravenous anesthetic could be desirable for patients with normal intracranial pressure, while total intravenous anesthesia could be beneficial for patients with elevated intracranial pressure. Comparison of inhalational anesthetics shows all appropriate for rapid emergence, decreasing time to extubation, and cognitive recovery. Comparison of opioids demonstrates similar awakening and extubation time if the infusion of longer acting opioids was ended at the appropriate time. Administration of local anesthetics into the skin, and addition of corticosteroids, NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, and PCA therapy postoperatively provided superior analgesia. It is also important to emphasize the possibility of long-term effects of anesthetics on cognitive function. More research is warranted to develop best practices strategies for the future that are evidence-based.

Background: In an attempt to improve patient care, a perioperative complex spine surgery management protocol was developed through collaboration between spine surgeons and neuroanesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to investigate whether implementation of the protocol in 2015 decreased total hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) and complication rates after elective complex spine surgery. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by review of the medical charts of patients who underwent elective complex spine surgery at an academic medical center between 2012 and 2017. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the date of their spine surgery in relation to implementation of the spine surgery protocol; before-protocol (January 2012 to March 2015) and protocol (April 2015 to March 2017) groups. Outcomes in the 2 groups were compared, focusing on hospital and ICU LOS, and complication rates. Results: A total of 201 patients were included in the study; 107 and 94 in the before-protocol and protocol groups, respectively. Mean (SD) hospital LOS was 14.8±10.8 days in the before-protocol group compared with 10±10.7 days in the protocol group (P<0.001). The spine surgery protocol was the primary factor decreasing hospital LOS; incidence rate ratio 0.78 (P<0.001). Similarly, mean ICU LOS was lower in the protocol compared with before-protocol group (4.2±6.3 vs. 6.3±7.3 d, respectively; P=0.011). There were no significant differences in the rate of postoperative complications between the 2 groups (P=0.231). Conclusion: Implementation of a spine protocol reduced ICU and total hospital LOS stay in high-risk spine surgery patients.

No abstract