Background: Awake surgery has become a key treatment of diffuse low-grade gliomas (DLGG) and is divided in three main phases: opening, tumor resection – during which the patient needs to be fully awake – and closure. The anesthetic management of awake neurosurgery is a challenge, and there are currently no guidelines. Objective: The objective of the survey was to explore differences and commonalities regarding the anesthetic management of awake DLGG surgery within the European Low-Grade Glioma Network (ELGGN) centers. Methods: A form that contained 14 questions about the anesthetic management was sent to 28 centers in May 2015. Results: Twenty centers responded. During the opening and closing non-awake periods, 56% of teams chose general anesthesia with mechanical ventilation for at least one period (asleep-awake-asleep, SAS protocol), and 44% monitored anesthesia care including sedation without mechanical ventilation (MAC protocol). In case of SAS, all the teams chose intravenous anesthesia, 82% used laryngeal mask instead of endotracheal intubation during the opening sequence, and 71% during closure. Local and regional anesthesia was practiced by all the teams. The most frequently reported cause of pain was dural and cerebral vessels manipulation (77%). Pain management was mostly based on paracetamol (70%) and remifentanil (55%). Conclusion: Our survey showed that there was an equivalent proportion of centers using SAS or MAC protocols in the anesthetic management of awake surgery in ELGGN centers. The advantages and disadvantages of each anesthesia protocol were reviewed.
Anesthesia management for low-grade glioma awake surgery: a European Low-Grade Glioma Network survey / Arzoine, J.; Lev('e), C.; P('e)rez-Hick, A.; Goodden, J.; Almairac, F.; Aubrun, S.; Gayat, E.; Freyschlag, C. F.; Vall('e)e, F.; Mandonnet, E.; Madadaki, C.; Rech, F.; Wager, M.; Barone, F.; Fontaine, D.; Pallud, J.; Viegas, C.; Zetterling, M.; Spena, G.; Rutten, G. -J.; Foroglu, N.; Skrap, M.; Martino, J.; Von Campe, G.; Dewitt Hamer, P.; Robles, S. G.; Sarubbo, S.; Santorius, T.; Bello, L.; Forster, M. -T.; Duffau, H.. - In: ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA. - ISSN 0942-0940. - 162:7(2020), pp. 1701-1707. [10.1007/s00701-020-04274-0]
Anesthesia management for low-grade glioma awake surgery: a European Low-Grade Glioma Network survey
Barone, F.;Sarubbo, S.;
2020-01-01
Abstract
Background: Awake surgery has become a key treatment of diffuse low-grade gliomas (DLGG) and is divided in three main phases: opening, tumor resection – during which the patient needs to be fully awake – and closure. The anesthetic management of awake neurosurgery is a challenge, and there are currently no guidelines. Objective: The objective of the survey was to explore differences and commonalities regarding the anesthetic management of awake DLGG surgery within the European Low-Grade Glioma Network (ELGGN) centers. Methods: A form that contained 14 questions about the anesthetic management was sent to 28 centers in May 2015. Results: Twenty centers responded. During the opening and closing non-awake periods, 56% of teams chose general anesthesia with mechanical ventilation for at least one period (asleep-awake-asleep, SAS protocol), and 44% monitored anesthesia care including sedation without mechanical ventilation (MAC protocol). In case of SAS, all the teams chose intravenous anesthesia, 82% used laryngeal mask instead of endotracheal intubation during the opening sequence, and 71% during closure. Local and regional anesthesia was practiced by all the teams. The most frequently reported cause of pain was dural and cerebral vessels manipulation (77%). Pain management was mostly based on paracetamol (70%) and remifentanil (55%). Conclusion: Our survey showed that there was an equivalent proportion of centers using SAS or MAC protocols in the anesthetic management of awake surgery in ELGGN centers. The advantages and disadvantages of each anesthesia protocol were reviewed.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione
