OBJECT Patients undergoing craniotomy are routinely assessed preoperatively, yet the role of these assessments in predicting outcome is poorly studied. This study aimed to identify preoperative factors predicting in-hospital outcome after cranial neurosurgery. METHODS The study cohort consisted of 418 consecutive adults undergoing elective craniotomy for any intracranial lesion. Apart from the age criteria (≥ 18 years), almost all patients were considered eligible for the study to increase external validity of the results. The studied preoperative assessments included various patient-related data, routine blood tests, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification system, and a local modification of the ASA classification (Helsinki ASA classification). Adverse outcomes were in-hospital mortality, in-hospital systemic or infectious complications, and in-hospital CNS deficits. Resource use was defined as length of stay (LOS) in the intensive care unit and overall LOS in the hospital. RESULTS The in-hospital mortality rate was 1.0%. In-hospital systemic or infectious complications and permanent or transient CNS deficits occurred in 6.7% and 11.2% of the patients, respectively. Advanced age (≥ 60–65 years), elevated C-reactive protein level (> 3 mg/L), and high Helsinki ASA score (Class 4) were associated with in-hospital systemic and infectious complications, and a combination of these could identify one-fourth of the patients with postoperative complications. Moreover, this combination of preoperative assessment parameters was significantly associated with increased resource use. CONCLUSIONS In this first prospective and unselected cohort study of outcome after elective craniotomy, simple preoperative assessments identified patients with a high risk of in-hospital systemic or infectious complications as well as extended resource use. Presented risk assessment methods may be widely applicable, also in low-volume centers, as they are based on composite predictors and outcome events.

Fluid filling with HES boluses resulted in a positive response in CI and SVI during the sitting position. The 34% smaller volume of HES than crystalloid and less positive fluid balance in the HES group might be important in craniotomy patients with decreased brain compliance.

In the noninvasive zero-heat-flux (ZHF) method, deep body temperature is brought to the skin surface when an insulated temperature probe with servo-controlled heating on the skin creates a region of ZHF from the core to the skin. The sensor of the commercial Bair-Hugger ZHF device is placed on the forehead. According to the manufacturer, the sensor reaches a depth of 1–2 cm below the skin. In this observational study, the anatomical focus of the Bair-Hugger ZHF sensor was assessed in pre- and postoperative CT or MRI images of 29 patients undergoing elective craniotomy. Assuming the 2-cm depth from the forehead skin surface, the temperature measurement point preoperatively reached the brain cortex in all except one patient. Assuming the 1-cm depth, the preoperative temperature measurement point did not reach the brain parenchyma in any of the patients and was at the cortical surface in two patients. Corresponding results were obtained postoperatively, although either sub-arachnoid fluid or air was observed in all CT/MRI images. Craniotomy did not have a detectable effect on the course of the ZHF temperatures. In Bland–Altman analysis, the agreement of ZHF temperature with the nasopharyngeal temperature was 0.11 (95% confidence interval − 0.54 to 0.75) °C and with the bladder temperature − 0.14 (− 0.81 to 0.52) °C. As conclusions, within the reported range of the Bair-Hugger ZHF measurement depth, the anatomical focus of the sensor cannot be determined. Craniotomy did not have a detectable effect on the course of the ZHF temperatures that showed good agreement with the nasopharyngeal and bladder temperatures.

The sitting position does not require excess fluid treatment compared with the prone position. HES is slightly more effective than RAC in achieving comparable hemodynamics, but the difference might be explained by patient weight. With goal-directed fluid administration and moderate use of vasoactive drugs, it is possible to achieve stable hemodynamics in both positions.