Intraoperative Anesthetic Care During Emergent/Urgent Craniotomy or Craniectomy for Intracranial Hypertension or Herniation: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to identify and describe best practice for the intraoperative anesthetic management of patients undergoing emergent/urgent decompressive craniotomy or craniectomy for any indication. The PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles related to urgent/emergent craniotomy/craniectomy for intracranial hypertension or brain herniation. Only articles focusing on intraoperative anesthetic management were included; those investigating surgical or intensive care unit management were excluded. Nine studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified after screening 1885 abstracts and full text review of 276 articles. Six of the 9 included studies were prospective and 3 were retrospective, and included sample sizes ranging between 48 and 373 patients. All were single center studies. Three studies examined anesthetic technique (volatile vs. intravenous), 1 examined osmotic diuresis, 1 examined extubation in the operating room, 1 examined quality metrics, and 3 examined intracranial pressure and changes in vital sign. There was insufficient evidence to perform a meta-analysis. Overall, there was limited evidence regarding the anesthetic management of patients having urgent/emergent craniotomy or craniectomy for intracranial hypertension or herniation due to any cause.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".