Publication Type | Academic Article |
Authors | Goldberg J, Bustillo M, Usenko J, Kuo P, Kirnaz S, Carnevale J, Schwarz J, McGrath L, Sommer F, Medary B, Härtl R |
Journal | Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) |
Volume | 21 |
Issue | 6 |
Pagination | E546-E547 |
Date Published | 11/15/2021 |
ISSN | 2332-4260 |
Abstract | Spine surgeons increasingly use intraoperative computed tomography (iCT) to facilitate surgery. iCT has several advantages, including the ability to decrease radiation exposure, improve surgical accuracy, and decrease operative time.1-3 However, the large footprint of the equipment can impede fast patient access in the event of an emergency resuscitation. This challenge is compounded when the patient is prone with rigid head fixation. To achieve fast, high-quality resuscitation, a large team must overcome numerous challenges. Cohesive team functioning under these circumstances requires planning, practice, and refinement.4 As a result of our simulation sessions, we have made several changes to the setup of our iCT cases. The following equipment is now routinely used: extralong tubing between the anesthesia circuit and patient, portable vital monitor, additional intravenous access is obtained, and extension tubing is used with all lines. We have created educational diagrams to streamline 2 challenging processes: optimal bed placement (for supination) and removal of equipment from the operating room (OR) to accommodate an influx of emergency personnel and equipment. Since the implementation of this protocol, 1 prone posterior cervical patient had intraoperative cardiac arrest. The protocol was followed. Return of spontaneous circulation was achieved within 5 min. The patient was discharged from the hospital with no neurological sequelae. During debriefing, stakeholders uniformly credited the simulated practice with this positive outcome. Emergency planning is a multifaceted process that continually evolves. With a steady flux of personnel and equipment, ongoing practice is essential to ensure readiness. Here, we share the key elements of our twice-yearly simulation. This simulation was performed on a training mannequin. This study did not involve human subjects. Any depictions of care rendered to nonidentifiable patients were standard (nonexperimental). |
DOI | 10.1093/ons/opab304 |
PubMed ID | 34432875 |