MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415333285 · doi:10.3171/2025.6.jns25715

Pneumocephalus after posterior fossa surgery in the lounging position: risk analysis of intracranial air collections and clinical outcome by voxel-based volumetry

2025· article· en· W4415333285 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helene Hurth, Florian Ebner, Kathrin Machetanz, Berthold Drexler, Marcos Tatagiba, Georgios Naros

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPneumocephalusPosterior fossaComputed tomographyRisk assessmentRisk factorPosition (finance)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Semisitting or lounging patient positions offer several advantages in neurosurgical procedures, particularly for the resection of large and highly vascularized posterior fossa lesions. However, concerns persist regarding potentially severe complications such as tension pneumocephalus (TP) and venous air embolisms. The aim of this study was to assess the extent and distribution of postoperative pneumocephalus and to identify risk factors of TP. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included consecutive patients who underwent posterior fossa surgery in the lounging position from January 2010 to November 2020 at a single center. Postoperative cranial CT scans acquired within 24 hours after surgery were registered and normalized to the common Montreal Neurological Institute space to measure intraventricular, subdural, and total intracranial air using voxel-based volumetry. TP was defined as intracranial air associated with reduced consciousness, and its treatment was typically performed via external ventricular drain (EVD) placement or subdural air exchange through mini burr hole trepanation. Patient characteristics, surgical details, and clinical outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 836 patients (462 female, mean age 48.7 years) were included. The indication for surgery was resection of a posterior fossa tumor (96.1%, n = 803), vascular pathology (2.6%, n = 22), malformation (1.1%, n = 9), or other pathology (0.2%, n = 2). Lateral suboccipital and midline suboccipital approaches were performed in 93.8% (n = 784) and 6.2% (n = 52) of patients, respectively. Intracranial air was detected in all patients, with a mean volume of 74 ± 59 mL. The volumetric analysis revealed significantly higher mean volumes of intracranial air (midline: 94 ± 72 mL, lateral: 73 ± 58 mL) [t(828) = 2.44, p = 0.008 (95% CI 4-38)] and intraventricular air (midline: 29 ± 32 mL, lateral: 3 ± 14 mL) [t(828) = 11.36, p < 0.001 (95% 21-30)] in midline approaches compared with lateral approaches. TP occurred in 3.0% of patients, with higher rates (15.4%) in those who underwent midline craniotomies compared with lateral approaches (2.0%) [χ2(1) = 31.14, p < 0.001]. Patients with TP required longer ventilation, intensive care unit stays, and hospitalizations, although Karnofsky Performance Status scores did not differ significantly at follow-up. The logistic regression analysis identified surgical approach, age, duration of surgery, and sex as independent predictors of TP [χ2(4) = 41.34, p < 0.001]. The area under the curve (AUC) analysis indicated that intraventricular air volumes ≥ 27.6 mL were associated with EVD placement (AUC = 0.92, sensitivity = 0.90, specificity = 0.95). TP was managed effectively in all cases, with no long-term sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the lounging position can be performed safely with careful monitoring for TP, particularly in older male patients and those undergoing longer surgeries via midline approaches. Awareness of risk factors and early postoperative imaging can help mitigate complications and improve patient outcomes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207