Degenerative lumbar disease is a common condition in which progressive deterioration of the structures in the spine causes severely incapacitating pain and disability. Conservative management, including passive or active physical therapy, activity modification, and medications (eg, anti‐inflammatory medications, oral and injectable steroids, opioids), may provide relief. However, when conservative management is unsuccessful or patients experience symptoms for an extended period of time, they may require spine surgery. Surgeons use a variety of techniques to perform lumbar fusion procedures with instrumentation, including open, percutaneous, minimally invasive, and robotic‐assisted with navigation. The accuracy of pedicle‐screw placement varies according to the technique used, and accuracy rates are high after robotic‐assisted with navigation procedures. In addition, robotic‐assisted spine procedures result in fewer infections than non–robotic‐assisted spine procedures (P = .04). Perioperative nurses should understand basic lumbar spine anatomy, steps completed during robotic‐assisted lumbar spine surgery, and the nursing considerations for patients undergoing this type of procedure.

Brain tumors can cause pressure, swelling, and functional changes to the surrounding tissue and lead to sensorimotor symptoms. Such tumors are either benign or malignant and their origin can be primary or metastatic. Although diagnostic studies (eg, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) can reveal a mass and provide information on its location, size, and relationship to surrounding structures, the most definitive way to make a diagnosis requires a brain biopsy tissue sample. The robotic‐assisted technique with stereotactic navigation allows the neurosurgeon to merge preoperative scans with a computer program to provide a map of the planned surgical trajectory and use the robot to obtain the biopsy. The robotic‐assisted brain biopsy with navigation provides improved accuracy with small incisions that may not be possible using non–robotic‐assisted techniques. This article provides background information and an overview of the nursing considerations for patients undergoing robotic‐assisted brain biopsy procedures.

Decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) is a procedure performed in the setting of malignant cerebral edema after a large middle cerebral artery stroke. The decision to proceed with surgical decompression is one that must be made judiciously and rapidly. Although this can be a life‐saving surgery, it does not necessarily improve the patient’s quality of life. The neurosurgical team must thoroughly discuss the patient’s comorbidities, age, dominant versus nondominant hemispheric injury, and neurological expectations, and the procedure itself (ie, risks, benefits, expected postoperative course, goals of care) with the patient and his or her family before DHC. This article briefly reviews the anatomy of the brain and stroke presentation and provides an overview of DHC and the perioperative course. The article concludes with a case study of a patient with a medical history of hypertension and prediabetes who presents to the emergency department after a fall and undergoes an emergent DHC.

Hydrocephalus is caused by the disruption of the normal flow of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), which results in a buildup of CSF. Hydrocephalus comprises two key categories: communicating and noncommunicating. Normal‐pressure hydrocephalus, a type of communicating hydrocephalus, currently has no cure; the main treatment option is ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) placement surgery. This procedure is performed to reestablish the balance between CSF production, flow, and absorption. Recently, general surgeons have begun assisting the neurosurgeon by placing the distal or abdominal end of the shunt using a laparoscopic technique. This article briefly reviews the pathophysiology and treatment options for hydrocephalus; presents a thorough review of the laparoscopic‐assisted VPS placement procedure, as well as the expected perioperative course and care considerations; and concludes with a case study of a 68‐year‐old patient who undergoes a laparoscopic‐assisted VPS placement.