Dexmedetomidine for awake craniotomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis
1
Issued Date
2024-09-01
Resource Type
ISSN
09675868
eISSN
15322653
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85199717098
Journal Title
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience
Volume
127
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience Vol.127 (2024)
Suggested Citation
Akavipat P., Sookplung P., Lekprasert V., Kasemsiri C., Lerdsirisophon S. Dexmedetomidine for awake craniotomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience Vol.127 (2024). doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2024.110765 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/100224
Title
Dexmedetomidine for awake craniotomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Introduction: For awake craniotomy, monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) had shown relatively lower failure rates. Nevertheless, the conclusion of the appropriate anaesthetic agents, and complications, has not been proposed. Therefore, the systematic review and meta-analysis was done to compare the clinical profile, surgical outcomes, and anesthesia-related complications between dexmedetomidine-based and non-dexmedetomidine regimens during monitored anesthesia care (MAC) for this procedure. Evidence acquisition: Published clinical trials described MAC, including the amount of anaesthetic drugs, or the number of patients for awake craniotomy between January 1st, 2009 and March 31st, 2022 were reviewed through PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and grey literature index. The standard methodological procedures were following the PRISMA statement with the PROSPERO registration. Twenty-two articles with 2,137 awake craniotomy patients identified as epilepsy surgery, deep brain stimulation procedure, and intracranial surgery closed to an eloquent area with intraoperative awakening for neuro-evaluation were included. The relative risk (RR) regarding surgical outcomes, and anaesthesia-related complications were compared. Evidence synthesis: Dexmedetomidine-based versus non-dexmedetomidine anaesthetic regimen revealed no statistically significant differences in surgical outcomes (RR 1.08, 95 %CI 0.94–1.24), conversion to general anaesthesia (RR 0.45, 95 %CI 0.05–3.83), respiratory complications (RR 0.4, 95 %CI 0.12–1.27), and intraoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.30, 95 %CI 0.08–1.14). However, the intraoperative seizure was higher in non-dexmedetomidine group (RR 4.26, 95 %CI 1.49–12.16). Conclusion: MAC for awake craniotomy with dexmedetomidine seems to be effective and safe. Randomized controlled trials with standard protocol in specific group of patients and surgical interventions would further demonstrate a clear benefit of dexmedetomidine in awake craniotomy under MAC.