Perceived Benefits and Barriers to a Career in Neuroanesthesiology: A Pilot Survey of Anesthesiology Clinicians Background: Despite advances in perioperative neuroscience, there is low interest among anesthesiology trainees to pursue subspecialty training in neuroanesthesiology. We conducted a pilot survey to assess attitudes about neuroanesthesiology fellowship training. Materials and Methods: A confidential survey was distributed to an international cohort of anesthesiology attendings and trainees between January 15, 2017 and February 26, 2017. Results: A total of 463 responses were received. Overall, 309 (67%), 30 (6%), 116 (25%), and 8 (2%) of respondents identified themselves as attendings, fellows, residents, and “other,” respectively. In total, 390 (84%) of respondents were from the United States. Individuals typically pursue anesthesiology fellowship training because of interest in the subspecialty, acquisition of a special skill set, and the role of fellowship training in career planning and advancement. Overall, 64% of attendings, 56% of fellows, and 55% of residents favored accreditation of neuroanesthesiology fellowships, although opinion was divided regarding the role of accreditation in increasing interest in the specialty. Respondents believe that increased opportunities for research and greater exposure to neurocritical care and neurological monitoring methods would increase interest in neuroanesthesiology fellowship training. Perceived barriers to neuroanesthesiology fellowship training were perceptions that residency provides adequate training in neuroanesthesiology, that a unique skill set is not acquired, and that there are limited job opportunities available to those with neuroanesthesiology fellowship training. Conclusions: In this pilot survey, we identified several factors that trainees consider when deciding to undertake subspecialty training and barriers that might limit interest in pursuing neuroanesthesiology subspecialty training. Our findings may be used to guide curricular development and identify factors that might increase interest among trainees in pursuing neuroanesthesiology fellowship training. Presented in abstract form at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care in Boston, MA on October 20, 2017. The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose. Address correspondence to: Shobana Rajan, MD. E-mail: shobanarajan5@gmail.com. Received June 26, 2019 Accepted September 16, 2019 Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved

Erector Spine Plane Block at the T12 Level may not Provide Good Postoperative Pain Relief Following Lumbosacral Spine Surgery No abstract available

Reporting Quality Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology: A Methodological Assessment Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered to provide high levels of evidence to optimize decision-making for patient care, although there can be a risk bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Quality assessment of RCTs is necessary to assess whether they provide reliable results with little bias. Materials and Methods: We assessed the reporting quality of RCTs published in the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology (JNA) between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2017 using the Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT). Results: We identified 130 RCTs and 570 original articles. Among the 130 RCTs, 92 (70.8%) presented an appropriate blinding method, and 70 (53.8%) described an appropriate allocation method. For the entire period, the percentages of high-quality reporting articles were 71.5%, 73.1%, and 13.8% in the Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and CCRBT assessments, respectively. There was an improvement in the van Tulder scale over time (coefficients [95% confidence interval {CI}]=0.08 [0.01-0.15]; P=0.02). Appropriate reporting of allocation in the Jadad scale (coefficients [95% CI]=1.68 [1.28-2.07]; P<0.001) and van Tulder scale (coefficients [95% CI]=2.34 [1.97-2.70]; P<0.001), and reporting of blinding in the Jadad (coefficients [95% CI]=1.09 [0.66-1.52]; P<0.001) and van Tulder scores (coefficients [95% CI]=1.85 [1.45- 2.25]; P<0.001), were associated with high-quality reporting. Conclusions: The ratio of high-quality reporting RCTs in JNA was consistently high compared with other journals. Thorough consideration of allocation concealment during the peer review process can further improve the reporting quality of RCTs in JNA. The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose. Address correspondence to: Kyu Nam Kim, MD, PhD. E-mail: vesicle100@naver.com. Received June 5, 2019 Accepted September 24, 2019 Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved

Assessment of Anesthesia Practice Patterns for Endovascular Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SNACC) Member Survey Background: The choice of general anesthesia (GA) or conscious sedation (CS) may impact neurological outcomes of patients undergoing endovascular therapy (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The aim of this survey was to describe the practice patterns of members of the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SNACC) for anesthetic management of AIS. Methods: Following institutional review board approval, a 16-question online survey assessing anesthetic management of patients with AIS undergoing EVT was circulated to members of SNACC. Results: A total of 76 SNACC members from 52 institutions and 11 countries completed the survey (12.5% response rate). Overall, 33% of institutions reported dedicated neuroanesthesia teams for EVT. Patients treated with GA ranged from 5% to 100% between centers. In total 51% and 49% of centers in the United States reported preferentially providing GA and CS, respectively, compared with 34% and 66%, respectively, in European centers. Reported anesthetic induction agents are propofol (64%), etomidate (4%) and either medication (33%). For maintenance of GA, volatile anesthetic is used more often (54%) than propofol (16%). There was wide variation in medications used for CS. Arterial catheter placement was reported by 75% and 43% of respondents for patients undergoing GA and CS, respectively. Systolic blood pressure >140 mm Hg was targeted by 35.7% of respondents, with others targeting mean arterial pressure within 10%, 20% or 30% of baseline values. Phenylephrine and norepinephrine were the most commonly used vasopressors. Conclusions: There is wide variation in anesthesia technique and hemodynamic management during EVT for AIS, and no consensus on the choice of, or preferred medications for, GA or CS, or target blood pressure and management of hypotension during the procedure. C.P. and D.S. are members of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Address correspondence to: Deborah A. Rusy, MD, MBA. E-mail: darusy@wisc.edu. Received March 23, 2019 Accepted October 1, 2019 Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved

Anesthesia During Positive-pressure Myelogram: A New Role for Cerebral Oximetry Background: Positive-pressure myelogram (PPM) is an emerging radiologic study used to localize spinal dural defects. During PPM, cerebrospinal fluid pressure (CSFp) is increased by injecting saline with contrast into the cerebrospinal fluid. This has the potential to increase intracranial pressure and compromise cerebral perfusion. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review and analysis of 11 patients. The aim was to describe the periprocedural anesthetic management of patients undergoing PPM. Results: All patients underwent PPM with general anesthesia and intra-arterial blood pressure and near-infrared spectroscopy monitoring of regional cerebral tissue oxygen saturation. Mean±SD maximum lumbar CSFp was 58±12 mm Hg. Upon intrathecal injection, mean systolic blood pressure increased from 115±21 to 142±32 mm Hg (P<0.001), diastolic blood pressure from 68±12 to 80±20 mm Hg (P≤0.001), and mean blood pressure from 87±10 to 98±14 mm Hg (P=0.02). Ten of 11 patients received blood pressure augmentation with phenylephrine to minimize the risk of reduced cerebral perfusion secondary to increased CSFp after intrathecal injection. The mean heart rate before and following injection was similar (68±15 vs. 70±15 bpm, respectively; P=0.16). There was a decrease in regional cerebral oxygen saturation after positioning from supine to prone position (79±10% to 74±9%, P=0.02) and a further decrease upon intrathecal injection (75±10% to 69±9%, P≤0.01). Conclusions: Systemic blood pressure increased following intrathecal injection during PPM, possibly due to a physiologic response to intracranial hypertension/reduced cerebral perfusion or administration of phenylephrine. Regional cerebral oxygen saturation decreased with the change to prone position and further decreased upon intrathecal injection. Cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy has a potential role to monitor the adequacy of cerebral perfusion and guide adjustment of systemic blood pressure during PPM. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Address correspondence to: Tasha L. Welch, MD. E-mail: welch.tasha@mayo.edu. Received May 14, 2019 Accepted August 20, 2019 Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved

Power and Challenges of Big Data: Why Clinical Researchers Should Not Be Ignored No abstract available

Recent Preoperative Concussion and Postoperative Complications: A Retrospective Matched-cohort Study Background: Physiological alterations during the perianesthetic period may contribute to secondary neurocognitive injury after a concussion. Methods: Patients exposed to concussion and who received an anesthetic within 90 days were matched to unexposed patients without concussion. Intraoperative and postoperative events were compared. Subgroup analyses assessed relationships among patients with a concussion in the prior 30, 31 to 60, and 61 to 90 days and their respective unexposed matches. To facilitate identification of potential targets for further investigation, statistical comparisons are reported before, as well as after, correction for multiple comparisons. Results: Sixty concussion patients were matched to 176 unexposed patients. Before correction, 28.3% postconcussion versus 14.8% unexposed patients reported postanesthesia care unit pain score≥7 (P=0.02); 16.7% concussion versus 6.5% unexposed patients reported headache within 90 days of anesthesia (P=0.02) and 23.5% of patients who received surgery and anesthesia within 30 days of concussion experienced headache within 90 days of anesthesia compared with 7.1% in the unexposed group (P=0.01). Patients who experienced concussion and had anesthesia between 31 and 60 days after injury had a postanesthesia care unit Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale score of −1.61±1.29 versus a score of −0.2±0.45 in unexposed patients (P=0.002). After adjusting the P-value threshold for multiple comparisons, the P-value for significance was instead 0.0016 for the overall cohort. Our study revealed no significant associations with application of adjusted significance thresholds. Conclusions: There were no differences in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in patients with recent concussion compared with unexposed patients. Before correction for multiple comparisons, several potential targets for further investigation are identified. Well-powered studies are warranted. Presented in abstract form at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care in San Francisco, CA, October 12, 2018. The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose. Address correspondence to: Arnoley S. Abcejo, MD. E-mail: abcejo.arnoley@mayo.edu. Received March 5, 2019 Accepted September 19, 2019 Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved

Intraoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging–induced Oropharyngeal Thermal Injury in a Patient With Acromegaly No abstract available

Revisiting Ischemia After Brain Injury: Oxygen May Not Be the Only Problem No abstract available