Neurosurgery and shaving: what's the evidence?

Many neurosurgeons remove their patients' hair before surgery. They claim that this practice reduces the chance of postoperative surgical site infections, and facilitates planning, attachment of the drapes, and closure. However, most patients dread this procedure. The authors performed the first systematic review on shaving before neurosurgical procedures to investigate whether this commonly performed procedure is based on evidence. They systematically reviewed the literature on wound infections following different shaving strategies. Data on the type of surgery, surgeryrelated infections, preoperative shaving policy, decontamination protocols, and perioperative antibiotics protocols were collected. The search detected 165 articles, of which 21 studies-involving 11,071 patients-were suitable for inclusion. Two of these studies were randomized controlled trials. The authors reviewed 13 studies that reported on the role of preoperative hair removal in craniotomies, 14 on implantation surgery, 5 on bur hole procedures, and 3 on spine surgery. Nine studies described shaving policies in pediatric patients. None of these papers provided evidence that preoperative shaving decreases the occurrence of postoperative wound infections. The authors conclude that there is no evidence to support the routine performance of preoperative hair removal in neurosurgery. Therefore, properly designed studies are needed to provide evidence for preoperative shaving recommendations.     

Heart rate: is it truly a vital sign?

BACKGROUND: Tachycardia, often defined as heart rate >100 bpm, has been utilized as a physical sign of hypovolemic shock among the injured for decades without evidence to support its use as a predictor of injury or significant hypovolemia. We sought to determine whether admission heart rate is a valid predictor of hemodynamically significant injuries. METHODS: Trauma registry data from 1998 to 2004 were analyzed with logistic regression to determine whether heart rate was associated with need for emergent intervention for bleeding (laparotomy, thoracotomy, or angiography), need for packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusion in the first 24 hours, or severe injury (ISS >25) after blunt or penetrating trauma. RESULTS: Records of 10,825 patients were analyzed. Overall, heart rate was neither sensitive nor specific in determining the need for emergent intervention, pRBCs in the first 24 hours or severe injury. This was not altered by the presence of hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg) or age in the blunt cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Heart rate alone is not sufficient to determine the need for emergent interventions for hemorrhage. Although tachycardia may still indicate need for emergent intervention in the trauma patient, its absence should not allay such concern.     

Nephrolithiasis: "scope," shock or scalpel?

PURPOSE: To evaluate treatment preferences for complex urinary calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 174 members of the Minnesota Urological Society. Three case scenarios were presented: a 1.5-cm lower-pole calculus with unfavorable anatomy, a 1.4-cm proximalureteral calculus, and a staghorn calculus. The treatment options offered were extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteral stenting, ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and open surgery. RESULTS: Our survey response rate was 49%. A PCNL for staghorn calculi was more likely to be offered by urologists in metropolitan (100%; P<0.001) and urban (100%; P=0.003) settings than rural settings (57%). Whereas only 22% of urban and metropolitan urologists would offer anatrophic nephrolithotomy, 43% of rural urologists would include this among their treatment options. A PCNL was more likely to be offered by urologists trained after 1980 (100%) than by urologists trained before 1980 (81%; P=0.004). For a large lower-pole calculus with unfavorable anatomy, urologists with >50% managed-care practices were more likely (91%) than urologists with <50% managed-care practices (65%) to select PCNL for such stones (P=0.034). Whereas 82% of metropolitan urologists would select PCNL, 43% of rural urologists would consider SWL as initial therapy. A URS was more likely to be offered by urologists trained after 1980 (16%) than by urologists trained before 1980 (0; P=0.044). For a large proximal-ureteral calculus, metropolitan urologists were most likely (64%) to use stents initially (urban 28%; P=0.014; rural 14%; P=0.017). Rural urologists were more likely to offer SWL (100%) than were metro urologists (55%; P=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Initial therapy for nephrolithiasis differs significantly according to geographic location, year of residency completion, and the percentage of managed-care patients in a urologist's practice. Future emphasis should be placed on increasing the availability of endoscopic techniques in rural settings.     

Tranexamic acid in Neurosurgery: a controversy indication—review

Neurosurgical Review - Tranexamic acid (TXA) is one of the measures indicated to reduce bleeding and the need for volume replacement. However, data on risks and benefits are controversial. This...