The Effect of Preterm Birth on Thalamic and Cortical Development

Preterm birth is a leading cause of cognitive impairment in childhood and is associated with cerebral gray and white matter abnormalities. Using multimodal image analysis, we tested the hypothesis that altered thalamic development is an important component of preterm brain injury and is associated with other macro- and microstructural alterations. T1- and T2-weighted magnetic resonance images and 15-direction diffusion tensor images were acquired from 71 preterm infants at term-equivalent age. Deformation-based morphometry, Tract-Based Spatial Statistics, and tissue segmentation were combined for a nonsubjective whole-brain survey of the effect of prematurity on regional tissue volume and microstructure. Increasing prematurity was related to volume reduction in the thalamus, hippocampus, orbitofrontal lobe, posterior cingulate cortex, and centrum semiovale. After controlling for prematurity, reduced thalamic volume predicted: lower cortical volume; decreased volume in frontal and temporal lobes, including hippocampus, and to a lesser extent, parietal and occipital lobes; and reduced fractional anisotropy in the corticospinal tracts and corpus callosum. In the thalamus, reduced volume was associated with increased diffusivity. This demonstrates a significant effect of prematurity on thalamic development that is related to abnormalities in allied brain structures. This suggests that preterm delivery disrupts specific aspects of cerebral development, such as the thalamocortical system

Expertise in surgical neuro-oncology. Results of a survey by the EANS neuro-oncology section

Introduction: Technical advances and the increasing role of interdisciplinary decision-making may warrant formal definitions of expertise in surgical neuro-oncology. Research question: The EANS Neuro-oncology Section felt that a survey detailing the European neurosurgical perspective on the concept of expertise in surgical neuro-oncology might be helpful. Material and methods: The EANS Neuro-oncology Section panel developed an online survey asking questions regarding criteria for expertise in neuro-oncological surgery and sent it to all individual EANS members. Results: Our questionnaire was completed by 251 respondents (consultants: 80.1%) from 42 countries. 67.7% would accept a lifetime caseload of >200 cases and 86.7% an annual caseload of >50 as evidence of neuro-oncological surgical expertise. A majority felt that surgeons who do not treat children (56.2%), do not have experience with spinal fusion (78.1%) or peripheral nerve tumors (71.7%) may still be considered experts. Majorities believed that expertise requires the use of skull-base approaches (85.8%), intraoperative monitoring (83.4%), awake craniotomies (77.3%), and neuro-endoscopy (75.5%) as well as continuing education of at least 1/year (100.0%), a research background (80.0%) and teaching activities (78.7%), and formal interdisciplinary collaborations (e.g., tumor board: 93.0%). Academic vs. non-academic affiliation, career position, years of neurosurgical experience, country of practice, and primary clinical interest had a minor influence on the respondents’ opinions. Discussion and conclusion: Opinions among neurosurgeons regarding the characteristics and features of expertise in neuro-oncology vary surprisingly little. Large majorities favoring certain thresholds and qualitative criteria suggest a consensus definition might be possible

ICAR: endoscopic skull‐base surgery

n/

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries