An intraoperative MRI guidance. This decision was made due to the

An intraoperative MRI guidance. This decision was made due to the limited generalizability of these techniques to many hospitals, which do not have a complex infrastructure and the potentially prolonged surgery time by using them. In U0126-EtOH site addition, it has to be acknowledged that the neurological outcome measures and the detection of intraoperative seizures may have differed between the studies.ConclusionSAS and MAC technique for AC seem to be similarly safe without serious complications, whereas evidence for the AAA technique is limited. AC requires a multidisciplinary teamwork and personal experience. The anaesthesiologist has to be skilled in multiple areas, including local anaesthesia for RSNB, advanced airway management, dedicated sedation protocols, an exquisite management of haemodynamics and a high rapid alert to treat possible intraoperative adverse events. AC can be conducted safely even in patients older than 65 years. The neurological outcome can be preserved and even improved in patients undergoing AC. A consequently performed local anaesthesia and scalp nerve block reduces the requirement of sedative agents and postoperative pain. The additionally use of dexmedetomidine enables further reduction of opioid and propofol infusion, while preserving haemodynamic stability. The benefit of MAC and AAA technique consists of reduction/ waiving of sedatives, which probably improves the intraoperative brain mapping. Large RCTs with a standardised protocol are required to prove if there is a significant superiority of one of the three anaesthetic regimes for AC.Supporting InformationS1 Checklist. Prisma Checklist. (PDF) S1 Fig. Forrest plot of the composite outcome. The summary value is an overall estimate from a random-effect model. The vertical dotted line shows an overall estimate of outcome proportion (based on the meta-analysis) disregarding grouping by technique. Of note, Souter et al. [60] have used both anaesthesia techniques. The composite outcome comprised the outcomes: awake craniotomy failure, intraoperative seizures and mortality within 30 days of surgery. (TIF) S2 Fig. Comparison between all and prospective studies. The RDX5791 cancer figure shows the predicted proportions for each outcome. The left panels depict results for all studies, and right panels show results for prospective studies only. Of note there is no estimate for new neurological dysfunctions in the SAS group among prospective studies, because only one study provided data. (TIF) S1 File. EMBASE and PubMed search strategy. (PDF) S2 File. Results of general considerations for AC. (PDF) S1 Table. Patient characteristics. HGG, high grade glioma; LGG, low grade glioma; NK, not known; SD, standard deviation. (PDF)PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0156448 May 26,39 /Anaesthesia Management for Awake CraniotomyS2 Table. Risk of bias assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. +, high risk; -, low risk;?, unknown risk (PDF) S3 Table. Risk of bias according to Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality tool [12]. AC, awake craniotomy; BIS, bispectral index; CT, computed tomography; MMSE, mini-mental state examination; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PONV, postoperative nausea and vomiting; VAS, visual analogue scale. (PDF)AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank Dr. Andras Keszei (Department of Medical Informatics, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Germany) for his excellent support with the statistical analysis.Author ContributionsConceived and designed the experiments:.An intraoperative MRI guidance. This decision was made due to the limited generalizability of these techniques to many hospitals, which do not have a complex infrastructure and the potentially prolonged surgery time by using them. In addition, it has to be acknowledged that the neurological outcome measures and the detection of intraoperative seizures may have differed between the studies.ConclusionSAS and MAC technique for AC seem to be similarly safe without serious complications, whereas evidence for the AAA technique is limited. AC requires a multidisciplinary teamwork and personal experience. The anaesthesiologist has to be skilled in multiple areas, including local anaesthesia for RSNB, advanced airway management, dedicated sedation protocols, an exquisite management of haemodynamics and a high rapid alert to treat possible intraoperative adverse events. AC can be conducted safely even in patients older than 65 years. The neurological outcome can be preserved and even improved in patients undergoing AC. A consequently performed local anaesthesia and scalp nerve block reduces the requirement of sedative agents and postoperative pain. The additionally use of dexmedetomidine enables further reduction of opioid and propofol infusion, while preserving haemodynamic stability. The benefit of MAC and AAA technique consists of reduction/ waiving of sedatives, which probably improves the intraoperative brain mapping. Large RCTs with a standardised protocol are required to prove if there is a significant superiority of one of the three anaesthetic regimes for AC.Supporting InformationS1 Checklist. Prisma Checklist. (PDF) S1 Fig. Forrest plot of the composite outcome. The summary value is an overall estimate from a random-effect model. The vertical dotted line shows an overall estimate of outcome proportion (based on the meta-analysis) disregarding grouping by technique. Of note, Souter et al. [60] have used both anaesthesia techniques. The composite outcome comprised the outcomes: awake craniotomy failure, intraoperative seizures and mortality within 30 days of surgery. (TIF) S2 Fig. Comparison between all and prospective studies. The figure shows the predicted proportions for each outcome. The left panels depict results for all studies, and right panels show results for prospective studies only. Of note there is no estimate for new neurological dysfunctions in the SAS group among prospective studies, because only one study provided data. (TIF) S1 File. EMBASE and PubMed search strategy. (PDF) S2 File. Results of general considerations for AC. (PDF) S1 Table. Patient characteristics. HGG, high grade glioma; LGG, low grade glioma; NK, not known; SD, standard deviation. (PDF)PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0156448 May 26,39 /Anaesthesia Management for Awake CraniotomyS2 Table. Risk of bias assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. +, high risk; -, low risk;?, unknown risk (PDF) S3 Table. Risk of bias according to Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality tool [12]. AC, awake craniotomy; BIS, bispectral index; CT, computed tomography; MMSE, mini-mental state examination; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PONV, postoperative nausea and vomiting; VAS, visual analogue scale. (PDF)AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank Dr. Andras Keszei (Department of Medical Informatics, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Germany) for his excellent support with the statistical analysis.Author ContributionsConceived and designed the experiments:.