Anesthesia for minimally invasive neurosurgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in imaging, computing and optics have encouraged the application of minimally invasive surgical approach to a variety of neurosurgical procedures. The advantages include accurate localization of lesions usually inaccessible to conventional surgery, less trauma to healthy brain, blood vessels and nerves, shorter operating time, reduced blood loss, and early recovery and discharge. Nevertheless minimally invasive neurosurgical (MIN) procedures still have potential intra- and post-operative complications that can cause morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to review and analyze published literature describing experiences in the anesthetic management of the most commonly performed MIN procedures. Neurosurgical and neuroanesthesia literature (1990–2013) was reviewed and description of anesthetic technique/management and perioperative morbidity/mortality was reported. We also compared the different authors’ experience with MIN procedures. The neurosurgical literature dealing with MIN has expanded, but there are few references in relation to anesthetic management. Anesthesia goals remain the same: careful pre-operative assessment and planning, and meticulous cerebral hemodynamic control to ensure adequate cerebral perfusion pressure. The degree of postoperative care depends on local practice, patient factors and postoperative brain imaging. Los avances en la formación de imágenes, la computación y la óptica han alentado la aplicación del enfoque quirúrgico mínimamente invasivo a una variedad de procedimientos neuroquirúrgicos. Las ventajas incluyen la localización exacta de las lesiones generalmente inaccesibles a la cirugía convencional, menos trauma al cerebro sano, vasos sanguíneos y nervios, más corto el tiempo de funcionamiento, la reducción de la pérdida de sangre, la recuperación temprana y el alta. Sin embargo los procedimientos neuroquirúrgicos mínimamente invasivos (NMI) todavía tienen potencial complicaciones intra y post-operatorias que pueden causar morbilidad y mortalidad. El objetivo de este estudio fue revisar y analizar la literatura publicada que describe las experiencias en el manejo anestésico de los procedimientos más comúnmente realizados en NMI. Literatura sobre neurocirugía y neuroanestesia (1990–2013). Revisión y descripción de la técnica anestésica/gestión y morbilidad perioperatoria/mortalidad notificada. Comparación de la experiencia de los diferentes autores en procedimientos de NMI. La literatura sobre NMI se ha expandido, pero hay pocas referencias en relación con el manejo anestésico. Las metas anestésicas siguen siendo las mismas: la evaluación preoperatoria cuidadosa y la planificación, el meticuloso control de hemodinámica cerebral para asegurar la presión de perfusión cerebral adecuada. El grado de cuidado postoperatorio depende de la práctica local, factores del paciente y de imagen cerebral postoperatoria.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".