成人脊柱手术的围手术期视力丧失和同意:脊柱外科医生和麻醉师的全国实践调查†。

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
British Journal of Neurosurgery Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-09 DOI:10.1080/02688697.2023.2275621
Marina Pitsika, Vasiliki-Maria Paschou, Rachel Pollard, Justin J Nissen
{"title":"成人脊柱手术的围手术期视力丧失和同意:脊柱外科医生和麻醉师的全国实践调查†。","authors":"Marina Pitsika, Vasiliki-Maria Paschou, Rachel Pollard, Justin J Nissen","doi":"10.1080/02688697.2023.2275621","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Perioperative Visual Loss (POVL) is a devastating complication for patients undergoing spine surgery. Consent process for POVL amongst spine surgeons and anaesthetist remains variable. The aim of this study is to evaluate their practice and views about it.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two similar questionnaires were distributed to members of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons (SBNS), British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS), and Neuroanaesthsia and Critical Care Society (NACCS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 271 responses were received (SBNS/BASS <i>n</i> = 149, NACCS <i>n</i> = 122). Fewer surgeons considered POVL as a material risk for patients compared to the anaesthetists (57.7 versus 79.7%). Outpatient/pre-assessment clinics were considered as the optimal setting for discussing POVL by the majority of the clinicians (81.2 and 93.4%). POVL should be discussed by both specialists according to 75% of the anaesthetists. Estimated incidence of POVL was considered to be higher by the anaesthetists (0.03-0.2% by 63% of the anaesthetist versus 0.0001-0.004% by 57% of the surgeons). Twenty-three surgeons and 10 anaesthetists had a patient who suffered from POVL, which led to a change of practice in most of them. This questionnaire will lead to a change in practice/consent to 18.1% of the surgeons and 23.5% of the anaesthetists.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most of the surgeons and anaesthetist feel that POVL is a material risk that ideally needs to be firstly discussed before the day of surgery, by both specialties. However, a significant number of clinicians have an opposite view. A national guidance from respective societies should encourage POVL to be discussed routinely.</p>","PeriodicalId":9261,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":"457-464"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perioperative visual loss and consent for adult spine surgery: a national survey of the practice amongst spine surgeons and anaesthetists<sup>†</sup>.\",\"authors\":\"Marina Pitsika, Vasiliki-Maria Paschou, Rachel Pollard, Justin J Nissen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02688697.2023.2275621\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Perioperative Visual Loss (POVL) is a devastating complication for patients undergoing spine surgery. Consent process for POVL amongst spine surgeons and anaesthetist remains variable. The aim of this study is to evaluate their practice and views about it.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two similar questionnaires were distributed to members of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons (SBNS), British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS), and Neuroanaesthsia and Critical Care Society (NACCS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 271 responses were received (SBNS/BASS <i>n</i> = 149, NACCS <i>n</i> = 122). Fewer surgeons considered POVL as a material risk for patients compared to the anaesthetists (57.7 versus 79.7%). Outpatient/pre-assessment clinics were considered as the optimal setting for discussing POVL by the majority of the clinicians (81.2 and 93.4%). POVL should be discussed by both specialists according to 75% of the anaesthetists. Estimated incidence of POVL was considered to be higher by the anaesthetists (0.03-0.2% by 63% of the anaesthetist versus 0.0001-0.004% by 57% of the surgeons). Twenty-three surgeons and 10 anaesthetists had a patient who suffered from POVL, which led to a change of practice in most of them. This questionnaire will lead to a change in practice/consent to 18.1% of the surgeons and 23.5% of the anaesthetists.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most of the surgeons and anaesthetist feel that POVL is a material risk that ideally needs to be firstly discussed before the day of surgery, by both specialties. However, a significant number of clinicians have an opposite view. A national guidance from respective societies should encourage POVL to be discussed routinely.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9261,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Neurosurgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"457-464\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Neurosurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2023.2275621\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2023.2275621","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对于接受脊柱手术的患者来说,围手术期视力丧失(POVL)是一种严重的并发症。脊柱外科医生和麻醉师对POVL的同意程序仍然存在变数。本研究的目的是评估他们的实践和对此的看法。方法:向英国神经外科医生协会(SBNS)、英国脊柱外科医生协会(BASS)和神经外科和重症监护协会(NACCS)的成员分发两份类似的问卷。结果:共收到271份回复(SBNS/BASS n = 149,NACCS n = 122)。与麻醉师相比,更少的外科医生认为POVL是患者的物质风险(57.7%对79.7%)。大多数临床医生(81.2%和93.4%)认为门诊/预评估诊所是讨论POVL的最佳场所。根据75%的麻醉师,两位专家都应讨论POVL。麻醉师认为POVL的估计发生率更高(63%的麻醉师为0.03-0.2%,57%的外科医生为0.0001-0.004%)。23名外科医生和10名麻醉师有一名患者患有POVL,这导致他们中的大多数人改变了做法。该问卷将导致18.1%的外科医生和23.5%的麻醉师在实践/同意方面发生变化。结论:大多数外科医生和麻醉师认为POVL是一种物质风险,理想情况下需要在手术前由两个专业首先讨论。然而,相当多的临床医生持相反的观点。各协会的国家指导意见应鼓励定期讨论POVL。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perioperative visual loss and consent for adult spine surgery: a national survey of the practice amongst spine surgeons and anaesthetists.

Background: Perioperative Visual Loss (POVL) is a devastating complication for patients undergoing spine surgery. Consent process for POVL amongst spine surgeons and anaesthetist remains variable. The aim of this study is to evaluate their practice and views about it.

Methods: Two similar questionnaires were distributed to members of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons (SBNS), British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS), and Neuroanaesthsia and Critical Care Society (NACCS).

Results: A total of 271 responses were received (SBNS/BASS n = 149, NACCS n = 122). Fewer surgeons considered POVL as a material risk for patients compared to the anaesthetists (57.7 versus 79.7%). Outpatient/pre-assessment clinics were considered as the optimal setting for discussing POVL by the majority of the clinicians (81.2 and 93.4%). POVL should be discussed by both specialists according to 75% of the anaesthetists. Estimated incidence of POVL was considered to be higher by the anaesthetists (0.03-0.2% by 63% of the anaesthetist versus 0.0001-0.004% by 57% of the surgeons). Twenty-three surgeons and 10 anaesthetists had a patient who suffered from POVL, which led to a change of practice in most of them. This questionnaire will lead to a change in practice/consent to 18.1% of the surgeons and 23.5% of the anaesthetists.

Conclusions: Most of the surgeons and anaesthetist feel that POVL is a material risk that ideally needs to be firstly discussed before the day of surgery, by both specialties. However, a significant number of clinicians have an opposite view. A national guidance from respective societies should encourage POVL to be discussed routinely.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of Neurosurgery
British Journal of Neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
139
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Neurosurgery is a leading international forum for debate in the field of neurosurgery, publishing original peer-reviewed articles of the highest quality, along with comment and correspondence on all topics of current interest to neurosurgeons worldwide. Coverage includes all aspects of case assessment and surgical practice, as well as wide-ranging research, with an emphasis on clinical rather than experimental material. Special emphasis is placed on postgraduate education with review articles on basic neurosciences and on the theory behind advances in techniques, investigation and clinical management. All papers are submitted to rigorous and independent peer-review, ensuring the journal’s wide citation and its appearance in the major abstracting and indexing services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信