No abstract

Background and Study Aims Both general and local anesthesia are used in our department for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The decision as to which anesthetic technique to use during surgery is made individually. The aim of our study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and preference with the anesthesia type used. Material and Methods The satisfaction of a group of 205 patients with regard to anesthesia used and their future preferences were evaluated prospectively through a questionnaire. The reasons for dissatisfaction were assessed. Results CEA was performed under general anesthesia (GA) in 159 cases (77.6%) and under local anesthesia (LA) in 46 cases (22.4%). In the GA group, 148 patients (93.1%) were satisfied; 30 patients (65.2%) in the LA group were satisfied (p < 0.0001). The reason for dissatisfaction with GA were postoperative nausea and vomiting (7 patients), postoperative psychological alteration (3), and fear of GA (1). The reasons for dissatisfaction with LA were intraoperative pain (9 patients), intraoperative discomfort and stress (5), and intraoperative breathing problems (2). Of the GA group, 154 (96.9%) patients would prefer GA again, and of the LA group, 28 (60.9%) patients would prefer LA if operated on again (p < 0.0001). Overall, 172 patients (83.9%) would prefer GA in the future, and 33 patients (16.1%) would prefer LA. Conclusion Overall patient satisfaction with CEA performed under both GA and LA is high. Nevertheless, in the GA group, patient satisfaction and future preference were significantly higher. Both GA and LA have advantages and disadvantages for CEA. An optimal approach is to make use of both anesthetic techniques based on their individual indications and patient preference.

Background and Study Aims Both general anesthesia (GA) and local anesthesia (LA) are used in our department for carotid endarterectomy. The decision of which anesthetic technique to use during surgery is made on an individual basis. The aim of our study was to analyze the reasons for using GA or LA. Material and Methods The reasons that led to the selection of either GA or LA were analyzed retrospectively in a group of 409 patients. Results GA was used in 304 patients (74%) and LA in 105 patients (26%). The reasons for a preference for GA were clopidogrel use (88 patients), patient preference (80), increased risk of shunt insertion (43), unfavorable anatomical conditions (41), surgeon preference (21), simultaneous carotid endarterectomy and cardiac surgery (18), emergent carotid endarterectomy (12), and sleep apnea syndrome (1). The reasons for selecting LA were internal comorbidities (46 patients), patient preference (39), unavailability of intraoperative electrophysiologic monitoring (15), and pacemaker (5). Conclusion GA is the dominant choice for carotid endarterectomy in our department because of its prevailing benefits and its preference among neurosurgeons and patients. However, in some subgroups of patients, LA is preferable. An optimal approach is therefore an individual indication for both anesthesia techniques.

Background Decompressive craniectomy (DC) has become the definitive surgical procedure to manage a medically intractable rise in intracranial pressure. DC is a life-saving procedure resulting in lower mortality but also higher rates of severe disability. Although technically straightforward, DC is accompanied by many complications. It has been reported that complications are associated with worse outcome. We reviewed a series of patients who underwent DC at our department to establish the incidence and types of complications. Methods We retrospectively evaluated the incidence of complications after DC performed in 135 patients during the time period from January 2013 to December 2018. Postoperative complications were evaluated using clinical status and CT during 6 months of follow-up. In addition, the impact of potential risk factors on the incidence of complications and the impact of complications on outcome were assessed. Results DC was performed in 135 patients, 93 of these for trauma, 22 for subarachnoid hemorrhage, 13 for malignant middle cerebral artery infarction, and 7 for intracerebral hemorrhage. Primary DC was performed in 120 patients and secondary DC in 15 patients. At least 1 complication occurred in each of 100 patients (74%), of which 22 patients (22%) were treated surgically. The following complications were found: edema or hematoma of the temporal muscle (34 times), extracerebral hematoma (33 times), extra-axial fluid collection (31 times), hemorrhagic progression of contusions (19 times), hydrocephalus (12 times), intraoperative malignant brain edema (10 times), temporal muscle atrophy (7 times), significant intraoperative blood loss (6 times), epileptic seizures (5 times), and skin necrosis (4 times). Trauma (p = 0.0006), coagulopathy (p = 0.0099), and primary DC (p = 0.0252) were identified as risk factors for complications. There was no significant impact of complications on outcome. Conclusions The incidence of complications following DC is high. However, we did not confirm a significant impact of complications on outcome. We emphasize that some phenomena are so frequent that they can be considered a consequence of primary injury or natural sequelae of the DC rather than its direct complication.

No abstract