Search

Background: The tension between the ideal of informed consent and the reality of the process is under‐investigated in spine surgery. Guidelines around consent imply a logical, plain‐speaking process with a clear endpoint, agreement and signature yet surgeons' surveys and patient interviews suggest that surgeons' explanation is anecdotally variable and patient understanding remains poor. To obtain a more authentic reflection of practice, spine surgeons obtaining 'informed consent' for non‐instrumented spine surgery were studied via video recording and risk/benefit discussions were analysed. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted at a single neurosurgical institution. Twelve video recordings involving six surgeons obtaining an informed consent for non‐instrumented spine surgery were transcribed verbatim and blindly analysed using descriptive quantification and linguistic ethnography. Results: Ten (83%) consultations discussed surgical benefit but less than half (41%) quantified the likelihood of benefit from surgery. The most discussed risks were nerve damage or paralysis (92%), bleeding (92%), infection (92%), cerebrospinal fluid leak (83%) and bowel and bladder dysfunction (75%). Surgeons commonly used a quantitative statement of risk (58%) but only half of the risks were explained in words patients were likely to understand. Conclusions: This study highlights inconsistencies in the way spine surgeons explain risks and obtain informed consent for 'simple' spine procedures in a real‐world setting. There are wide disparities in the provision of informed consent, which may be encountered in other surgical fields. Direct observation and qualitative analysis can provide insights into the limitations of current informed consent practice and help guide future practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives Few simulation models are available that provide neurosurgical trainees with the challenge of distorted skull base anatomy despite increasing importance in the acquisition of safe microsurgical and endoscopic techniques. We have previously reported a unique training model for skull base neurosurgery where a polymer is injected into a cadaveric head where it solidifies to mimic a skull base tumor for resection. This model, however, required injection of the polymer under direct surgical vision via a complicated alternative approach to that being studied, prohibiting its uptake in many neurosurgical laboratories. Conclusion We report our updated skull base tumor model that is contrast-enhanced and may be easily and reliably injected under fluoroscopic guidance. We have identified a map of burr holes and injection corridors available to place tumor at various intracranial sites. Additionally, the updated tumor model allows for the creation of mass effect, and we detail the variation of polymer preparation to mimic different tumor properties. These advancements will increase the practicality of the tumor model and ideally influence neurosurgical standards of training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Retraction injury might explain the soft tissue complications seen after anterior cervical surgery. A novel retractor system (Seex retractor system [SRS]) that uses a principle of bone fixation with rotation has been shown to reduce retraction pressure in a cadaveric model of anterior cervical decompression and fusion., Objective: To compare the conventional Cloward-style retractor (CRS) with the SRS in a prospective randomized clinical trial., Methods: After ethics and study registration (ACTRN 12608000430336), eligible patients were randomized to either the CRS or SRS before 1- or 2-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion. The pressure beneath the medial retractor blade was recorded with a thin pressure transducer strip. Postoperative sore throat, dysphagia, and dysphonia were assessed after 1, 7, and 28 days., Results: Twenty-six patients were randomized. There were no serious complications. Complication rates were low with a trend favoring SRS that was not statistically different. Average retraction pressure with SRS was 1.9 mm Hg and with CRS was 5.6 mm Hg (P < .001 on F test; P = .002 on 2-tailed t test). Mean average peak retraction pressure with the SRS was 3.4 mm Hg and with the CRS was 20 mm Hg (P < .001 on F test; P = .005 on 2-tailed t test)., Conclusion: The new retractor is safe, and statistically similar complication rates were observed with the 2 systems. The SRS generated significantly less retraction pressure compared with the CRS. This difference can be explained by the different principles governing the function of these retractors. Bone fixation gives stability and rotation reduces tissue pressure, both desirable in a retractor.