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.

BACKGROUND: Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are used in a variety of high-stakes examinations. The primary goal of this study was to examine factors influencing the variability of assessment scores for mock OSCEs administered to senior anesthesiology residents. METHODS: Using the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) OSCE Content Outline as a blueprint, scenarios were developed for 4 of the ABA skill types: (1) informed consent, (2) treatment options, (3) interpretation of echocardiograms, and (4) application of ultrasonography. Eight residency programs administered these 4 OSCEs to CA3 residents during a 1-day formative session. A global score and checklist items were used for scoring by faculty raters. We used a statistical framework called generalizability theory, or G-theory, to estimate the sources of variation (or facets), and to estimate the reliability (ie, reproducibility) of the OSCE performance scores. Reliability provides a metric on the consistency or reproducibility of learner performance as measured through the assessment. RESULTS: Of the 115 total eligible senior residents, 99 participated in the OSCE because the other residents were unavailable. Overall, residents correctly performed 84% (standard deviation [SD] 16%, range 38%–100%) of the 36 total checklist items for the 4 OSCEs. On global scoring, the pass rate for the informed consent station was 71%, for treatment options was 97%, for interpretation of echocardiograms was 66%, and for application of ultrasound was 72%. The estimate of reliability expressing the reproducibility of examinee rankings equaled 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49–0.63), which is reasonable for normative assessments that aim to compare a resident’s performance relative to other residents because over half of the observed variation in total scores is due to variation in examinee ability. Phi coefficient reliability of 0.42 (95% CI, 0.35–0.50) indicates that criterion-based judgments (eg, pass-fail status) cannot be made. Phi expresses the absolute consistency of a score and reflects how closely the assessment is likely to reproduce an examinee’s final score. Overall, the greatest (14.6%) variance was due to the person by item by station interaction (3-way interaction) indicating that specific residents did well on some items but poorly on other items. The variance (11.2%) due to residency programs across case items was high suggesting moderate variability in performance from residents during the OSCEs among residency programs. CONCLUSIONS: Since many residency programs aim to develop their own mock OSCEs, this study provides evidence that it is possible for programs to create a meaningful mock OSCE experience that is statistically reliable for separating resident performance.