Abstract

Background Perioperative Visual Loss (POVL) is a devastating complication for patients undergoing spine surgery. Consent process for POVL amongst spine surgeons and anaesthetist remains variable. The aim of this study is to evaluate their practice and views about it. Methods Two similar questionnaires were distributed to members of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons (SBNS), British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS), and Neuroanaesthsia and Critical Care Society (NACCS). Results A total of 271 responses were received (SBNS/BASS n = 149, NACCS n = 122). Fewer surgeons considered POVL as a material risk for patients compared to the anaesthetists (57.7 versus 79.7%). Outpatient/pre-assessment clinics were considered as the optimal setting for discussing POVL by the majority of the clinicians (81.2 and 93.4%). POVL should be discussed by both specialists according to 75% of the anaesthetists. Estimated incidence of POVL was considered to be higher by the anaesthetists (0.03–0.2% by 63% of the anaesthetist versus 0.0001–0.004% by 57% of the surgeons). Twenty-three surgeons and 10 anaesthetists had a patient who suffered from POVL, which led to a change of practice in most of them. This questionnaire will lead to a change in practice/consent to 18.1% of the surgeons and 23.5% of the anaesthetists. Conclusions Most of the surgeons and anaesthetist feel that POVL is a material risk that ideally needs to be firstly discussed before the day of surgery, by both specialties. However, a significant number of clinicians have an opposite view. A national guidance from respective societies should encourage POVL to be discussed routinely.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.