Search

The global demand for hospital care, driven by population growth and medical advances, emphasizes the importance of optimized resource management. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols aim to expedite patient recovery and reduce health care costs without compromising patient safety or satisfaction. Its principles have been adopted in various surgical specialties but have not fully encompassed all areas of neurosurgery, including craniotomy. ERAS for craniotomy has been shown to reduce the length of hospital stay and costs without increasing complications. ERAS protocols may also reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting and perioperative opioid requirements, highlighting their potential to enhance patient outcomes and health care efficiency. Despite these benefits, guidelines, and strategies for ERAS in craniotomy remain limited. This narrative review explores the current global landscape of ERAS for craniotomy, assessing existing literature and highlighting knowledge gaps. Experts from 26 countries with diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds contributed to this review, offering insights about current ERAS protocol applications, implementation challenges, and future perspectives, and providing a comprehensive global overview of ERAS for craniotomy. Representatives from all 6 World Health Organization geographical world areas reported that barriers to the implementation of ERAS for craniotomy include the absence of standardized protocols, provider resistance to change, resource constraints, insufficient education, and research scarcity. This review emphasizes the necessity of tailored ERAS protocols for low and middle-income countries, addressing differences in available resources. Acknowledging limitations in subjectivity and article selection, this review provides a comprehensive overview of ERAS for craniotomy from a global perspective and underscores the need for adaptable ERAS protocols tailored to specific health care systems and countries., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The frequency of duplex ultrasound screening (DUS) for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients with brain tumors undergoing craniotomy is center-specific. We evaluated clinical conditions that increase the tendency to perform DUS, focusing on tumor type., Methods: This is a single-center retrospective analysis to assess the association of intracranial tumor type with DVT as a major decision-making indicator for DUS. A primary analysis investigated the association between tumor pathology and preoperative DVT, and a secondary analysis investigated the development of DVT postoperatively. Confounding factors were defined and included in both analyses., Results: Among 1478 patients, 751 had preoperative DUS and 35 (5%) had DVT. No significant difference in the odds of preoperative DVT was observed between patients having malignant glioma versus benign tumors (odds ratio [OR; 95% CI]: 1.68 [0.65, 4.35], P = 0.29), or metastatic tumors versus benign tumors (OR: 2.10; 95% CI: 0.75-5.89; P = 0.16). Among patients with negative preoperative DUS, 93 underwent postoperative evaluation and 20 (22%) were diagnosed with postoperative DVT. Malignant glioma or (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 0.36-7.84; P = 0.50) metastatic tumors (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 0.29-11.5; P = 0.52) were not associated with postoperative DVT versus benign tumors., Conclusion: Brain tumor pathology may not increase the risk for DVT and may not be a good indicator for the selection of patients for DVT screening with DUS. The incidence of DVT in selective preoperative DUS was similar to studies that performed DUS on all patients. Further studies across multiple institutions are needed to develop criteria for DUS in brain tumor surgery., Competing Interests: R.A. is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology. He has received invited speaker honoraria, a SPARK Catalyst Grant for medical device Innovation and other patents with potential royalties, none of which are relevant to this study. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)