A checklist for endonasal transsphenoidal anterior skull base surgery

Intraoperative MRI for transsphenoidal pituitary surgery

J Neurosurg 124:1634–1639, 2016

Approximately 250 million surgical procedures are performed annually worldwide, and data suggest that major complications occur in 3%–17% of them. Many of these complications can be classified as avoidable, and previous studies have demonstrated that preoperative checklists improve operating room teamwork and decrease complication rates. Although the authors’ institution has instituted a general preoperative “time-out” designed to streamline communication, flatten vertical authority gradients, and decrease procedural errors, there is no specific checklist for transnasal transsphenoidal anterior skull base surgery, with or without endoscopy. Such minimally invasive cranial surgery uses a completely different conceptual approach, set-up, instrumentation, and operative procedure. Therefore, it can be associated with different types of complications as compared with open cranial surgery. The authors hypothesized that a detailed, procedure-specific, preoperative checklist would be useful to reduce errors, improve outcomes, decrease delays, and maximize both teambuilding and operational efficiency. Thus, the object of this study was to develop such a checklist for endonasal transsphenoidal anterior skull base surgery.

Methods An expert panel was convened that consisted of all members of the typical surgical team for transsphenoidal endoscopic cases: neurosurgeons, anesthesiologists, circulating nurses, scrub technicians, surgical operations managers, and technical assistants. Beginning with a general checklist, procedure-specific items were added and categorized into 4 pauses: Anesthesia Pause, Surgical Pause, Equipment Pause, and Closure Pause.

Results The final endonasal transsphenoidal anterior skull base surgery checklist is composed of the following 4 pauses. The Anesthesia Pause consists of patient identification, diagnosis, pertinent laboratory studies, medications, surgical preparation, patient positioning, intravenous/arterial access, fluid management, monitoring, and other special considerations (e.g., Valsalva, jugular compression, lumbar drain, and so on). The Surgical Pause is composed of personnel introductions, planned procedural elements, estimation of duration of surgery, anticipated blood loss and fluid management, imaging, specimen collection, and questions of a surgical nature. The Equipment Pause assures proper function and availability of the microscope, endoscope, cameras and recorders, guidance systems, special instruments, ultrasonic microdoppler, microdebrider, drills, and other adjunctive supplies (e.g., Avitene, cotton balls, nasal packs, and so on). The Closure Pause is dedicated to issues of immediate postoperative patient disposition, orders, and management.

Conclusions Surgical complications are a considerable cause of death and disability worldwide. Checklists have been shown to be an effective tool for reducing preventable errors surrounding surgery and decreasing associated complications. Although general checklists are already in place in most institutions, a specific checklist for endonasal transsphenoidal anterior skull base surgery was developed to help safeguard patients, improve outcomes, and enhance teambuilding.

Incidence of Neurosurgical Wrong-Site Surgery Before and After Implementation of the Universal Protocol

Wrong-site spinal surgery

Neurosurgery 72:590–595, 2013

Although exceedingly rare, wrong-site surgery (WSS) remains a persistent problem in the United States. The incidence is thought to be 2 to 3 per 10 000 craniotomies and about 6 to 14 per 10 000 spine surgeries. In July 2004, the Joint Commission mandated the Universal Protocol (UP) for all accredited hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of UP implementation on the incidence of neurosurgical WSS at the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria/Illinois Neurological Institute.

METHODS: The Morbidity and Mortality Database in the Department of Neurosurgery was reviewed to identify all recorded cases of WSS since 1999. This was compared with the total operative load (excluding endovascular procedures) of all attending neurosurgeons to determine the incidence of overall WSS. A comparison was then made between the incidences before and after UP implementation.

RESULTS: Fifteen WSS events were found with an overall incidence of 0.07% and Poisson 95% confidence interval of 8.4 to 25. All but one of these were wrong-level spine surgeries (14/15). There was only 1 recorded case of wrong-side surgery and this occurred after implementation of the UP. A statistically greater number of WSS events occurred before (n = 12) in comparison with after (n = 3) UP implementation (P < .001).

CONCLUSION: A statistically significant reduction in overall WSS was seen after implementation of the UP. This reduction can be attributed to less frequent wronglevel spine surgery. There was no case of wrong procedure or patient surgery and the 1 case of wrong-side surgery occurred after UP implementation.