Attenuation of Haemodynamic Response to Placement of Mayfield Skull Pin Head Holder - Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol Infusion - A Randomized Interventional Trial Done in a Tertiary Centre in Central Kerala

The above article has been withdrawn on authors’ request. Original CitationUnni S, Sebastian R, Joseph E, et al. Attenuation of haemodynamic response to placement of Mayfield skull pin head holder - comparison of dexmedetomidine versus propofol infusion - a randomized interventional trial done in a tertiary centre in central Kerala. J Evid Based Med Healthc 2021;8(29):2639-2643. DOI: 10.18410/jebmh/2021/486

Skull X-ray head holder

The industry produces the head holder of the system prof. Ginzburg. It is complex and not very comfortable. We recommend a simpler and more comfortable head holder. It consists of the following parts.

A STUDY ON HAEMODYNAMIC RESPONSE ATTENUATION DURING HEAD HOLDER APPLICATION FOR CRANIOTOMY COMPARING IV DEXMEDITOMIDINE AND LOCAL LIGNOCAINE

Background; One of the goals of neuro anesthesia is to ensure stable perioperative cerebral hemodynamics, thus avoiding a sudden rise in intracranial pressure and prevent acute brain swelling.1 The intense surgical stimuli associated with craniotomy frequently causes sympathetic activation, which results in changes in heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), and cerebral blood ow (CBF). These changes may increase intracranial pressure (ICP) and a reduction in cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP). Finally, it leads to cerebral ischemia, especially in patients with impaired autoregulation and compromised cerebral compliance2,3. Thus, it is essential to preserve cerebral homeostasis and to prevent abrupt changes in hemodynamics. Smooth and rapid recovery from anesthesia allows immediate neurological assessment. Application of skull pin head holder is a necessity for stabilizing the head during craniotomy. Mayeld device or head holder is a clamp thatconsists of a C-shaped metal piece with three sharp interchangeable metal pins arranged triangularly to one another.4 These pins forced through the layers of scalp and periosteuminto the external lamina of the skull. Skull pins support the head without allowing any direct pressure on the face, allow access to the airway, and hold head rmly in one position that can nely be adjusted for optimal neurosurgical exposure. This study was conducted in fty ASA grade 1 or 2 patients who were adm Methods: itted at Government General Hospital, Guntur afliated to Guntur Medical College, Guntur, to undergo elective craniotomies under general anesthesia. After getting Ethical committee approval, a total of fty patients were allocated into two groups of 25 each. They were connected to the non-invasive monitors, and the basal heart rate and mean arterial pressure were recorded.Patients randomized to group dexmedetomidine received 1mcg/kg of dexmedetomidine diluted to 10ml with 0.9% saline over 10 min through a syringe pump, after recording pre-induction baseline hemodynamic parameters. Before the pin application, these patients received inltration of the pin sites with 0.9% saline (3ml for each site). Patients randomized to group lidocaine received infusion of 10ml of 0.9% saline over 10min, after recording baseline hemodynamic parameters. They then received inltration of the pre-marked pin sites with 2% lidocaine (without adrenaline), 3ml for each site. Heart rate and mean arterial pressure were recorded at various time intervals.Baseline, preinltration, post inltration, pre pin, 1 minute after post pin, 2minutes after post pin, 3 minutes, 5 miutes, 10 minutes and 15 minutes after post pin application. The result was analyzed using student t-test, and a P value of less than 0.05 was taken as signicant. ResultsWith patients matched for demographic data, the results showed there was no signicant difference in baseline values between the two groups. Heart rate and mean arterial pressure were comparable between the groups at various time intervals in the study. Thus both dexmedetomidine and lidocaine are equally effective in controlling the hemodynamic response to skull pin application. Despite being comparable to lidocaine inltration, dexmedetomidine causes signicantlymore episodes of hypotension and bradycardia, which could be detrimental in neurosurgical patients. Dexmedetomidine 1mcg/kg infusion and 2% li Conclusion gnocaine inltration both are equally effective in controlling the hemodynamic response to skull pin placement. Despite being comparable to lignocaine inltration, dexmedetomidine causes signicantly more episodes of bradycardia and hypotension, so they need rescue medication, which could be detrimental in a neurosurgical patient. We conclude that 2% of local lignocaine inltration is better in controlling hemodynamic responses to skull pin head holder application and does not cause any adverse effects in any of the patients.

Respond of the different human cranial bones to pin-type head fixation device

Background At this juncture, there is no consensus in the literature for the use and the safety of pin-type head holders in cranial procedures. Methods The present analysis of the bone response to the fixation of the instrument provides data to understand its impact on the entire skull as well as associated complications. An experimental study was conducted on fresh-frozen human specimens to analyze the puncture hole due to the fixation of each single pin of the pin-type head holder. Cone-beam CT images were acquired to measure the diameter of the puncture hole caused by the instrument according to several parameters: the pin angle, the clamping force, and different neurosurgical approaches most clinically used. Results The deepest hole, 2.67 ± 0.27 mm, was recorded for a 35° angle and a clamping force of 270 N at the middle fossa approach. The shallowest hole was 0.62 ± 0.22 mm for the 43° angle with a pinning force of 180 N in the pterional approach. The pterional approach had a significantly different effect on the depth of the puncture hole compared with the middle fossa craniotomy for 270 N pinning at 35° angle. The puncture hole measured with the 43° angle and 180 N force in prone position is significantly different from the other approaches with the same force. Conclusions These results could lead to recommendations about the use of the head holder depending on the patient’s history and cranial thickness to reduce complications associated with the pin-type head holder during clinical applications.

Bend the Tool, Not the Wrist: An Ergonomic Investigation of Medical Suturing Needle Holder Design and Medical Engineering Solution

The study aimed to assess a new needle holder grip and head design on medical suturing quality and experience. Generally, suturing remained fundamentally unchanged since its invention, possessing high variability, discomfort, and can be moderately predictable. In this study, 2 grip designs (traditional holder grip and a new slightly curved crescent-shaped grip) and 2 head types (smooth vs knurled) were investigated resulting in 4 groups. Thirty-two medical interns were recruited to participate in this study. Their performances were assessed across time, symmetry, wrist posture, discomfort, and perceived difficulty. Findings revealed that the new grip led to a lesser time, better wrist posture, less discomfort, and difficulty than the traditional grip. More, the new grip with smooth head holder led to more symmetrical and shorter knots than knurled and conventional grip one. Findings are of interest for medical personnel, where it is recommended to use a smooth head and new grip needle holder while suturing for better suturing performance, wrist posture, and hand comfort.