Neuro-Chirurgie · 2023
Asleep-awake-asleep versus hypnosis for low-grade glioma surgery: long term follow-up outcome.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bankole Nourou Dine Adeniran, Kanmounye Ulrick Sidney, Ouahabi Abdessamad El, Zemmoura Ilyess
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hypnosis-aided craniotomy is a safe alternative to standard asleep-awake-asleep (AAA) surgery in glioma surgery. The impact of these two anesthetic methods on tumor prognosis has never been assessed.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the possible impact of the type of sedation (i.e., hypnosedation vs. standard sedation) on postoperative outcomes in awake surgery for gliomas.
METHODS: Adult patients who underwent awake surgery for a diffuse glioma, excluding glioblastomas, between May 2011 and December 2019 at the authors' institution were included in the analysis. Pearson Chi-square, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for inferential analyses.
RESULTS: Sixty-one (61) patients were included, thirty-one were female (50.8 %), and the mean age was 41.8 years (SD = 11.88). Most patients had IDH mutated tumors (n = 51; 83.6%). Twenty-six patients (42.6%) were hypnosedated while 35 (57.4%) received standard AAA procedure. The overall median follow-up time was 48 months (range: 10 months-120 months). Our results did not identify any significant difference between both techniques in terms of extent of resection (sub-total resection >95% rates were 11.48% vs. 8.20%, OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 0.62-8.44; P = 0.34) and of overall survival (87.5% of patients in the AAA surgery group reach 9 years OS vs. 79% in the hypnosis cohort, cHR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.12-6.04; P = 0.87).
CONCLUSION: Hypnosis for awake craniotomy is rarely proposed although it is a suitable alternative to standard sedation in awake craniotomy for LGGs, with similar results in terms of extent of resection or survival.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the possible impact of the type of sedation (i.e., hypnosedation vs. standard sedation) on postoperative outcomes in awake surgery for gliomas.
METHODS: Adult patients who underwent awake surgery for a diffuse glioma, excluding glioblastomas, between May 2011 and December 2019 at the authors' institution were included in the analysis. Pearson Chi-square, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for inferential analyses.
RESULTS: Sixty-one (61) patients were included, thirty-one were female (50.8 %), and the mean age was 41.8 years (SD = 11.88). Most patients had IDH mutated tumors (n = 51; 83.6%). Twenty-six patients (42.6%) were hypnosedated while 35 (57.4%) received standard AAA procedure. The overall median follow-up time was 48 months (range: 10 months-120 months). Our results did not identify any significant difference between both techniques in terms of extent of resection (sub-total resection >95% rates were 11.48% vs. 8.20%, OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 0.62-8.44; P = 0.34) and of overall survival (87.5% of patients in the AAA surgery group reach 9 years OS vs. 79% in the hypnosis cohort, cHR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.12-6.04; P = 0.87).
CONCLUSION: Hypnosis for awake craniotomy is rarely proposed although it is a suitable alternative to standard sedation in awake craniotomy for LGGs, with similar results in terms of extent of resection or survival.