Cargando…

Anesthetic and surgical predictors of treatment outcome in re-do craniotomy

INTRODUCTION: Craniotomy is a neurosurgical operation done to remove brain tumor, repair vascular lesion, and relieve intracranial pressure. Complications can arise which may necessitate re-do craniotomy. The study is planned to find out the relationship between variables such as age, American Socie...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Adigun, TA, Adeolu, AA, Adeleye, AO, Shokunbi, MT, Malomo, AO, Boadu, SD Amanor
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3159348/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21897675
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-3147.83578
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Craniotomy is a neurosurgical operation done to remove brain tumor, repair vascular lesion, and relieve intracranial pressure. Complications can arise which may necessitate re-do craniotomy. The study is planned to find out the relationship between variables such as age, American Society of Anaesthesiologist (ASA), Glasgow coma score (GCS), frequency of re-do craniotomy, and surgical outcome of re-do craniotomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all the patients who had re-do craniotomy over a 4-year period. The data that were collected included age, sex, ASA classification, indication for re-do craniotomy, GCS, frequency of re-do craniotomy, postoperative complications, and outcome. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients had indication for re-do craniotomy within the study period. Forty percent were male and 60% were female, and their mean age was 38.56 ± 17.38 years. The indications for re-do craniotomy were removal of residual tumor, evacuation of clot, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Seventy-six percent had good outcome, while 24% had poor outcome. Outcome was good for patients who had re-do craniotomy done once, while poor outcome was for patients with second and third craniotomies. Ninety percent of patients with ASA (2) had good outcome, while 9.1% had poor outcome; but 64.3% had good outcome with ASA (3), while 37.7% had poor outcome with a P-value of 0.18. Seventy-five percent had poor outcome in patients with GCS of less than 9, while 25% had good outcome; but 14.3% had poor outcome in patients with GCS above 9, while 85.7% had good outcome with a P-value of 0.031. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing frequency of re-do craniotomy and lower GCS were major factors affecting outcome in re-do craniotomy in our center. The outcome of these patients is valuable in the management of other patients with re-do craniotomy in future.