Search

Background: The aim of this study was to achieve a consensus on the minimum set of outcome measures and predictors to be used in the neurosurgical practice and on the timing of outcome assessment., Methods: A consensus building approach was employed. All neurosurgical departments in Lombardy (Italy) were invited to participate by the Carlo Besta Neurologic Institute IRCCS Foundation. Three workshops were organized during which a multidisciplinary group called Neurosurgical Outcome Network (NEON) was created and the methodology to select outcome measures, predictors, and timing of outcome assessment was established. Eight working groups were created for the different neurosurgical diseases (neuro-oncological, skull base, vascular, traumatic, spinal, peripheral nervous system, malformation, functional) and 8 workshops were organized to identify the outcome measures and predictors specific for each of the neurosurgical diseases based on the experts' clinical practice and the existing literature., Results: A total of 20 neurosurgical departments participated in this study. Specific outcome measures, predictors and the timing of outcome assessment were identified for each of the 8 neurosurgical diseases. Moreover, a list of variables common to all pathologies were identified by the NEON group as further data to be collected., Conclusions: A consensus on the minimum set of outcome measures and predictors and the timing of outcome assessments for 8 neurosurgical diseases was achieved by a group of neurosurgeons of the Lombardy region, called NEON. These sets could be used in future studies for a more homogeneous data collection and as a starting point to reach further agreement also at national and international level.

Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is going to be the third-leading cause of death worldwide, according to the WHO. Two European surveys suggested that adherence to brain trauma guidelines is poor. No study has compared compliance between low- (LMICs) and high-income (UHICs) countries. Hence, this study aimed to investigate differences in the management of severe TBI patients, comparing low- and high-income, and adherence to the BTF guidelines., Methods: A web-based survey was spread through the Global Neuro Foundation, different neurosurgical societies, and social media., Results: A total of 803 neurosurgeons participated: 70.4 from UHICs and 29.6% from LMICs. Hypertonic was administered as an early measure by the 73% and 65% of the responders in LMICs and UHICs, respectively (P=0.016). An invasive intracranial pressure monitoring was recommended by the 66% and 58% of the neurosurgeons in LMICs and UHICs, respectively (P<0.001). Antiseizure drugs (P<0.001) were given most frequently in LMICs as, against recommendations, steroids (87% vs. 61% and 86% vs. 81%, respectively). In the LMICs both the evacuation of the contusion and decompressive craniectomy were performed earlier than in UHICs (30% vs. 17% with P<0.001 and 44% vs. 28% with P=0.006, respectively). In the LMICs, the head CT control was performed mostly between 12 and 24 hours from the first imaging (38% vs. 23%, P<0.001)., Conclusions: The current Guidelines on TBI do not always fit to both the resources and circumstances in different countries. Future research and clinical practice guidelines should reflect the greater relevance of TBI in low resource settings.

Surgical indications for cerebral cavernous malformations remain significantly center- and surgeon-dependent. Available grading systems are potentially limited, as they do not include epileptological and radiological data. A novel grading system is proposed for supratentorial and cerebellar cavernomas: it considers neuroradiological features (bleeding, increase in size), neurological status (focal deficits and seizures), location of the lesion and age of the patient. The score ranges from -1 to 10; furthermore, surgery should be considered when a score of 4 or higher is present. Based on neuroradiological characteristics, 0 points are assigned if the CCM is stable in size at different neuroradiological controls, 1 point if there is an increase in volume during follow-up, 2 points if intra- or extra-lesional bleeding <1 cm is present and 3 points if the CCM produced a hematoma >1 cm. Regarding focal neurological deficits, 0 points are assigned if absent and 2 points if present. For seizures, 0 points are assigned if absent, 1 point if present, but controlled by medications, and 2 points if drug resistant. We considered the site of the CCM, and in case of deep-seated lesions in a critical area (basal ganglia, thalamus) 1 point (-1) is subtracted, while for subcortical or deep cerebellar lesions 0 points are assigned, for CCMs in a cortical critical area 1 point is assigned and in case of lesions in cortical not in critical area or superficial cerebellar area, 2 points are assigned. As far as age is concerned, 0 points are assigned for patients older than 50 years and 1 point for patients younger than 50. In conclusion, a novel grading for surgical decision making in cerebral cavernomas, based on the experience of selected neurosurgeons, basic scientists, and patients, is suggested with the aim of further improving and standardizing the treatment of CCMs. The aim of this paper was also to call for both retrospective and prospective multicenter studies with the aim of testing the efficacy of the grading system in different centers.