Anaesthesia Management for Awake Craniotomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ana Stevanovic, Rolf Rossaint, Michael Veldeman, Federico Bilotta and Mark Coburn

PLOS ONE, 2016, vol. 11, issue 5, 1-44

Abstract: Background: Awake craniotomy (AC) renders an expanded role in functional neurosurgery. Yet, evidence for optimal anaesthesia management remains limited. We aimed to summarise the latest clinical evidence of AC anaesthesia management and explore the relationship of AC failures on the used anaesthesia techniques. Methods: Two authors performed independently a systematic search of English articles in PubMed and EMBASE database 1/2007-12/2015. Search included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), observational trials, and case reports (n>4 cases), which reported anaesthetic approach for AC and at least one of our pre-specified outcomes: intraoperative seizures, hypoxia, arterial hypertension, nausea and vomiting, neurological dysfunction, conversion into general anaesthesia and failure of AC. Random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate event rates for four outcomes. Relationship with anaesthesia technique was explored using logistic meta-regression, calculating the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals [95%CI]. Results: We have included forty-seven studies. Eighteen reported asleep-awake-asleep technique (SAS), twenty-seven monitored anaesthesia care (MAC), one reported both and one used the awake-awake-awake technique (AAA). Proportions of AC failures, intraoperative seizures, new neurological dysfunction and conversion into general anaesthesia (GA) were 2% [95%CI:1–3], 8% [95%CI:6–11], 17% [95%CI:12–23] and 2% [95%CI:2–3], respectively. Meta-regression of SAS and MAC technique did not reveal any relevant differences between outcomes explained by the technique, except for conversion into GA. Estimated OR comparing SAS to MAC for AC failures was 0.98 [95%CI:0.36–2.69], 1.01 [95%CI:0.52–1.88] for seizures, 1.66 [95%CI:1.35–3.70] for new neurological dysfunction and 2.17 [95%CI:1.22–3.85] for conversion into GA. The latter result has to be interpreted cautiously. It is based on one retrospective high-risk of bias study and significance was abolished in a sensitivity analysis of only prospectively conducted studies. Conclusion: SAS and MAC techniques were feasible and safe, whereas data for AAA technique are limited. Large RCTs are required to prove superiority of one anaesthetic regime for AC.

Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0156448 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 56448&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0156448

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156448

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().