清醒开颅手术麻醉:监测麻醉护理与清醒-睡眠-清醒技术的比较。
Awake Craniotomy Anesthesia: A Comparison of the Monitored Anesthesia Care and Asleep-Awake-Asleep Techniques.
作者信息
Eseonu Chikezie I, ReFaey Karim, Garcia Oscar, John Amballur, Quiñones-Hinojosa Alfredo, Tripathi Punita
机构信息
Department of Neurological Surgery and Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
出版信息
World Neurosurg. 2017 Aug;104:679-686. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.05.053. Epub 2017 May 19.
BACKGROUND
Commonly used sedation techniques for an awake craniotomy include monitored anesthesia care (MAC), using an unprotected airway, and the asleep-awake-asleep (AAA) technique, using a partially or totally protected airway. We present a comparative analysis of the MAC and AAA techniques, evaluating anesthetic management, perioperative outcomes, and complications in a consecutive series of patients undergoing the removal of an eloquent brain lesion.
METHODS
Eighty-one patients underwent awake craniotomy for an intracranial lesion over a 9-year period performed by a single-surgeon and a team of anesthesiologists. Fifty patients were treated using the MAC technique, and 31 were treated using the AAA technique. A retrospective analysis evaluated anesthetic management, intraoperative complications, postoperative outcomes, pain management, and complications.
RESULTS
The MAC and AAA groups had similar preoperative patient and tumor characteristics. Mean operative time was shorter in the MAC group (283.5 minutes vs. 313.3 minutes; P = 0.038). Hypertension was the most common intraoperative complication seen (8% in the MAC group vs. 9.7% in the AAA group; P = 0.794). Intraoperative seizure occurred at a rate of 4% in the MAC group and 3.2% in the AAA group (P = 0.858). Awake cases were converted to general anesthesia in no patients in the MAC group and in 1 patient (3.2%) in the AAA group (P = 0.201). No cases were aborted in either group. The mean hospital length of stay was 3.98 days in the MAC group and 3.84 days in the AAA group (P = 0.833).
CONCLUSIONS
Both the MAC and AAA sedation techniques provide an efficacious and safe method for managing awake craniotomy cases and produce similar perioperative outcomes, with the MAC technique associated with shorter operative time.
背景
清醒开颅手术常用的镇静技术包括监护麻醉管理(MAC),采用无保护气道,以及清醒-睡眠-清醒(AAA)技术,采用部分或完全保护气道。我们对MAC和AAA技术进行了一项比较分析,评估了一系列连续接受明确脑区病变切除术患者的麻醉管理、围手术期结局及并发症。
方法
在9年期间,由一名外科医生和一组麻醉医生为81例患者进行了用于颅内病变的清醒开颅手术。50例患者采用MAC技术治疗,31例采用AAA技术治疗。一项回顾性分析评估了麻醉管理、术中并发症、术后结局、疼痛管理及并发症。
结果
MAC组和AAA组术前患者及肿瘤特征相似。MAC组平均手术时间较短(283.5分钟对313.3分钟;P = 0.038)。高血压是最常见的术中并发症(MAC组为8%,AAA组为9.7%;P = 0.794)。MAC组术中癫痫发生率为4%,AAA组为3.2%(P = 0.858)。MAC组无患者清醒状态转为全身麻醉,AAA组有1例患者(3.2%)发生此种情况(P = 0.201)。两组均无手术中止情况。MAC组平均住院时间为3.98天,AAA组为3.84天(P = 0.833)。
结论
MAC和AAA镇静技术均为管理清醒开颅手术病例提供了有效且安全的方法,且围手术期结局相似,MAC技术手术时间较短。