Gözde İnan, Hasan Kutluk Pampal, Gökçen Emmez, Zerrin Özköse Satırlar

Yeni Bir Karar Destek Sistemi Olan Smartpilot® View Kullanımının Spinal Cerrahilerde Derlenme ve Anestetik Tüketimine Etkisi: Retrospektif Çalışma

Amaç: Spinal cerrahilerde anesteziden derlenmenin hızlı ve kaliteli olması erken nörolojik muayene için önemlidir. Bu retrospektif çalışmada, spinal cerrahi geçirmiş hastalarda SmartPilot® View (SPV) kılavuzluğunda genel anestezi uygulaması ile BIS ile standart anestezi uygulamasının derlenme sürelerine ve anestetik tüketimine etkilerinin karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Etik kurul onamının alınmasını takiben, anestezi kayıtları taranarak Kasım 2017-Şubat 2018 arasında elektif spinal cerrahi geçiren hastaların verileri retrospektif olarak incelendi. Hastalar, SPV ile anestezi uygulanan (SPV) ve BIS ile standart anestezi uygulanan (Kontrol) olmak üzere iki gruba ayrılarak incelendi. Hastaların demografik özellikleri, anestezi ve cerrahi süreleri, ekstübasyon ve göz açma zamanları, tüketilen anestetik ilaç miktarları iki grup arasında karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Toplam 120 hastanın verileri analiz edildi (SPV n=63, kontrol n=57). Göz açma ve ekstübasyon süreleri SPV ve kontrol gruplarında sırasıyla 134.27±28.83 sn ve 296.89±35.28 sn, 188.67±42.01 sn ve 339.23±51.37 sn olup, SPV grubunda her iki süre de anlamlı olarak daha kısaydı (p

The Effect of Smartpilot® View, A New Decision Support System on Recovery and Anesthetic Consumption in Spinal Surgery: A Retrospective Study

Objective: Rapid and high-quality recovery from anesthesia following spinal surgeries is important for early neurological assessment. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare effects of SPV-guided general anesthesia and BIS-guided standard anesthesia on recovery times and anesthetic consumption in patients who had undergone spinal surgery. Methods: Following ethics committee approval, records of the patients who underwent elective spinal surgery between November 2017-February 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. As a result of data scanning, patients were divided into two groups: SPV-guided (SPV) and BIS-guided standard anesthesia (Control). The demographics of the patients, anesthesia and surgery times, eye opening and extubation times, and amount of anesthetic drug consumed were compared between the two groups. Results: Totally 120 subjects were analyzed (SPV n=63, control n=57). Time taken for eye opening and extubation were 134.27±28.83 sec and 296.89±35.28 sec, 188.67±42.01 sec and 339.23±51.37 sec in SPV and control groups, respectively and both durations were significantly shorter in SPV group (p

PDF

___

1. Gruenewald M, Harju J, Preckel B, et al. Comparison of adequacy of anaesthesia monitoring with standard clinical practice monitoring during routine general anaesthesia: An international, multicentre, singleblinded randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2021;38:73-81. https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000001357
2. Cirillo V, Zito Marinosci G, De Robertis E, et al. Navigator® and SmartPilot® View are helpful in guiding anesthesia and reducing anesthetic drug dosing. Minerva Anestesiol. 2015;81:1163-9.
3. Velik-Salchner C. Computed advisory systems in daily practice for predicting concentrations and effects of combined anesthetics: a new field in anesthesia? Minerva Anestesiol. 2015;81:1151-2.
4. Leblanc D, Conté M, Masson G, et al. SmartPilot® viewguided anaesthesia improves postoperative outcomes in hip fracture surgery: a randomized blinded controlled study. Br J Anaesth. 2017;119:1022-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aex317
5. Inan G, Satirlar Ozkose Z. Target Controlled Infusion via Smartpilot® view for Neuromonitoring in Neurosurgical Patients: A Novel Technology. Clin Surg. 2021;6:3165.
6. Recart A, Gasanova I, White PF, et al. The effect of cerebral monitoring on recovery after general anesthesia: a comparison of the auditory evoked potential and bispectral index devices with standard clinical practice. Anesth Analg. 2003;97:1667-74. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ANE.0000087041.63034.8C
7. Lewis SR, Pritchard MW, Fawcett LJ, Punjasawadwong Y. Bispectral index for improving intraoperative awareness and early postoperative recovery in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;9:CD003843. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003843.pub4
8. Chiang MH, Wu SC, Hsu SW, Chin JC. Bispectral Index and non-Bispectral Index anesthetic protocols on postoperative recovery outcomes. Minerva Anestesiol. 2018;84:216-28. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.17.12033-X
9. Dahaba A. Different conditions that could results in the bispectral index indicating an incorrect hypnotic state. Anesth Analg. 2005;101:765-73. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000167269.62966.af
10. Hagihira S, Okitsu K, Kawaguchi M. Unusually low bispectral index values during emergence from anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2004;98:1036-8. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ANE.0000103261.86889.DE
11. Syroid ND, Agutter J, Drews FA, et al. Development and evaluation of a graphical anesthesia drug display. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:565-75. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200203000-00010
12. Kennedy RR. Application of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and signal analysis to drug administration in anaesthesia. In: Gambus PL, Hendrickx JFA, editors. Personalized anaesthesia. Targeting physiological systems for optimal effect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019. p. 82-102. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316443217.006
13. Strus MMRF, Sahinovic M, Lichtenbelt BJ, Vereecke HEM, Absalom AR. Optimizing intravenous drug administration by applying pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic concepts. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:38-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer108
14. Heyse B, Proost JH, Schumacher PM, et al. Sevoflurane remifentanil interaction: Comparison of different response surface models. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:311- 23.5. Shafer SL. All models are wrong. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:240-1. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e318242a4a7
16. Minto CF, Schnider TW, Short TG, Gregg KM, Gentilini A, Shafer SL. Response surface model for anesthetic drug interactions. Anesthesiology. 2000;92:1603-16. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200006000-00017
17. Manyam SC, Gupta DK, Johnson KB, et al. Opioidvolatile anesthetic synergy: a response surface model with remifentanil and sevoflurane as prototypes. Anesthesiology. 2006;105:267-78. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200608000-00009
18. van den Berg JP, Vereecke HE, Proost JH, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions in anaesthesia. A review of current knowledge and how it can be used to optimize anaesthetic drug administration. Br J Anaesth. 2017;118:44-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew312
19. Schumacher PM, Dossche J, Mortier EP, Luginbuehl M, Bouillon TW, Struys MM. Response surface modeling of the interaction between propofol and sevoflurane. Anesthesiology. 2009;111:790-804. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181b799ef
20. Luginbühl M, Schumacher PM, Vuilleumier P, et al. Noxious stimulation response index: A novel anesthetic state index based on hypnotic-opioid interaction. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:872-80. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181d40368
21. Hannivoort LN, Vereecke HEM, Proost JH, et al. Probability to tolerate laryngoscopy and noxious stimulation response index as general indicators of the anaesthetic potency of sevoflurane, propofol, and remifentanil. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116:624-31. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew060
22. Morimoto Y, Shiramoto H, Yoshimura M. The usefulness of Smart Pilot View for fast recovery from desflurane general anesthesia. J Anesth. 2021;35:239-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-021-02905-z
23. Kennedy RR. Seeing the future of anesthesia drug dosing: moving the art of anesthesia from impressionism to realism. Anesth Analg 2010;111:252-5. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181e62ff1