The anesthetic risks and outcomes of the first 100 consecutive spring-assisted surgeries (SAS) for cranial expansion from a single institution are reported. The effect of number of procedures was also tested on hematocrit postoperative day 1 (POD1), anesthesia time, and surgery time of the first procedure.
The records of 100 consecutive patients undergoing SAS were reviewed. Anesthesia management and related complications are presented. Time series linear regression analysis was performed on hematocrit POD1, anesthesia time, and surgery time of the first procedure.
The average age of the first insertion procedure was 4.4 and 9.0 months for the second removal procedure. Two patients were inadvertently extubated during positioning. Thirty-eight children had a decrease in blood pressure >20% from baseline. No child was admitted to the intensive care unit. No patient received any blood or blood product transfusion. Anesthesia time, surgery time, and hematocrit POD1 were correlated with procedure number or experience.
Changes in anesthetic management resulted from changing the procedure. The reduction in volume resuscitation reduces the need for invasive monitoring. Facility and comfort with the surgical procedure increase with time and number of procedures performed. This experience further reduces blood loss and risk of transfusion.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Purpose:
Spring-assisted surgery is an effective and minimally invasive treatment for sagittal craniosynostosis (CSO). The principal barrier to the advancement of spring-assisted surgery is the patient-specific spring selection. The selection of spring force depends on the suture involved, subtypes of sagittal CSO, and age of the infant, among other factors. Clinically, physicians manually judge the subtype of sagittal CSO patients based on their CT
image data, which may cause bias from different clinicians. An objective system would be helpful to stratify the sagittal CSO patients and make spring choice less subjective.
Medical Physics 09/2015; 42(9). DOI:10.1118/1.4928708 · 2.64 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.