Awake brain tumor resection during pregnancy: Decision making and technical nuances

The co-occurrence of primary brain tumor and pregnancy poses unique challenges to the treating physician. If a rapidly growing lesion causes life-threatening mass effect, craniotomy for tumor debulking becomes urgent. The choice between awake craniotomy versus general anesthesia becomes complicated if the tumor is encroaching on eloquent brain because considerations pertinent to both patient safety and oncological outcome, in addition to fetal wellbeing, are involved. A 31-year-old female at 30 weeks gestation with twins presented to our hospital seeking awake craniotomy to resect a 7 × 6 × 5 cm left frontoparietal brain tumor with 7 mm left-to-right subfalcine herniation on imaging that led to word finding difficulty, dysfluency, right upper extremity paralysis, and right lower extremity weakness. She had twice undergone tumor debulking under general anesthesia during the same pregnancy at an outside hospital at 16 weeks and 28 weeks gestation. There were considerations both for and against awake brain tumor resection over surgery under general anesthesia. The decision-making process and the technical nuances related to awake brain tumor resection in this neurologically impaired patient are discussed. Awake craniotomy benefits the patient who harbors a tumor that encroaches on the eloquent brain by allowing a greater extent of resection while preserving the language and sensorimotor function. It can be successfully done in pregnant patients who are neurologically impaired. The patient should be motivated and well informed of the details of the process. A multidisciplinary and collaborative effort is also crucial

Global surgery, obstetric, and anaesthesia indicator definitions and reporting: An Utstein consensus report

Background Indicators to evaluate progress towards timely access to safe surgical, anaesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) care were proposed in 2015 by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. These aimed to capture access to surgery, surgical workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate, and catastrophic and impoverishing financial consequences of surgery. Despite being rapidly taken up by practitioners, data points from which to derive the indicators were not defined, limiting comparability across time or settings. We convened global experts to evaluate and explicitly define—for the first time—the indicators to improve comparability and support achievement of 2030 goals to improve access to safe affordable surgical and anaesthesia care globally. Methods and findings The Utstein process for developing and reporting guidelines through a consensus building process was followed. In-person discussions at a 2-day meeting were followed by an iterative process conducted by email and virtual group meetings until consensus was reached. The meeting was held between June 16 to 18, 2019; discussions continued until August 2020. Participants consisted of experts in surgery, anaesthesia, and obstetric care, data science, and health indicators from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Considering each of the 6 indicators in turn, we refined overarching descriptions and agreed upon data points needed for construction of each indicator at current time (basic data points), and as each evolves over 2 to 5 (intermediate) and >5 year (full) time frames. We removed one of the original 6 indicators (one of 2 financial risk protection indicators was eliminated) and refined descriptions and defined data points required to construct the 5 remaining indicators: geospatial access, workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and catastrophic expenditure. A strength of the process was the number of people from global institutes and multilateral agencies involved in the collection and reporting of global health metrics; a limitation was the limited number of participants from low- or middle-income countries—who only made up 21% of the total attendees. Conclusions To track global progress towards timely access to quality SAO care, these indicators—at the basic level—should be implemented universally as soon as possible. Intermediate and full indicator sets should be achieved by all countries over time. Meanwhile, these evolutions can assist in the short term in developing national surgical plans and collecting more detailed data for research studies.publishedVersio