Background and Purpose: The morbidity and early mortality associated with stroke is largely attributable to cerebral edema and elevated intracranial pressure (ICP). Existing pharmacotherapies do not target the underlying pathophysiology and are often ineffective in sustainably lowering ICP, whilst decompressive craniectomy (DC) surgery is life-saving yet with surgical/peri-operative risk and increased morbidity in the elderly. Accordingly, there is an urgent need for therapies that directly target the mechanisms of edema genesis. Neurogenic inflammation, mediated by substance P (SP) binding to the tachykinin NK1 receptor (NK1-r), is associated with blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption, cerebral edema and poor outcome post-stroke. NK1-r antagonist treatment ameliorates BBB dysfunction and cerebral edema in rodent stroke models. However, treatment has not been investigated in a large animal model, an important step toward clinical translation. Consequently, the current study compared the efficacy of NK1-r antagonist treatment to DC surgery in reducing ICP post-stroke in a clinically relevant ovine model. Methods: Anesthetized female Merino sheep (65 ± 6 kg, 18–24 months) underwent sham surgery (n = 4) or permanent middle cerebral artery occlusion (n = 22). Stroke animals were randomized into one of 5 treatments: 1×NK1 bolus (4 h), 2×NK1 bolus (4 h;9 h), 3×NK1 bolus (4 h;9 h;14 h), DC surgery (performed at 4 h) or saline vehicle. ICP, blood pressure and blood gasses were monitored for 24 h post-stroke. At 24 h post-stroke anesthetized animals underwent MRI followed by perfusion and brains removed and processed for histological assessment. Results: 2×NK1, 3×NK1 administration or DC surgery significantly (p < 0.05) reduced ICP compared to vehicle. 1×NK1 was ineffective in sustainably lowering ICP. On MRI, midline shift and cerebral edema were more marked in vehicles compared to NK1-r treatment groups. Conclusion: Two or three boluses of NK1-r antagonist treatment reduced ICP comparable to DC surgery, suggesting it may provide a novel alternative to invasive surgery for the management of elevated ICP.

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was first published in The Lancet by Sir Graham Teasdale and Bryan Jennett 50 years ago based on their pioneering work on developing a numerical scale to describe coma in clear and reproducible terms and to avoid the confusion associated with the wide variety of descriptive terms for consciousness that were in use at the time. It's difficult to know if Teasdale and Jennett could have predicted how influential, widespread and long-lasting the GCS would become, but in retrospect it seems clear that the GCS was introduced at a perfect stage in the development of modern clinical neurosurgery and neuroscience research. The simplicity of the scale, its recognition by senior academics and the emerging radiology technologies in the 1970s heralded a new era of neuroscience and an approach to the management of not only traumatic brain injury (TBI) but other types of central nervous system disease in which consciousness was affected, such as aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage and stroke. Together with its sister scale the Glasgow Outcome Scale, the GCS remains extremely relevant in clinical neurosurgery and neuroscience research, and despite the proposal of various alternative scales the GCS endures in the modern management of TBI.

Background: Core outcome sets (COSs) are important and necessary as they help standardize reporting in research studies. Cranioplasty following traumatic brain injury (TBI) or stroke is becoming increasingly common, leading to an ever-growing clinical and research interest, especially regarding the optimal material, cost-effectiveness, and timing of cranioplasty concerning neurological recovery and complications. Consequently, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes from such diverse studies has led to limited meta-analysis ability and an ongoing risk of outcome reporting bias. This study aims to define a standardized COS for reporting in all future TBI and stroke cranioplasty studies. Objective: This study has four aims: (1) undertake a systematic review to collate the most current outcome measures used within the cranioplasty literature; (2) undertake a qualitative study to understand better the views of clinicians, patients' relatives, and allied health professionals regarding clinical outcomes following cranioplasty; (3) undertake a Delphi survey as part of the process of gaining consensus for the COS; and (4) finalize consensus through a consensus meeting resulting in the COS. Methods: An international steering committee has been formed to guide the development of the COS. In addition, recommendations from other clinical initiatives such as COMET (Core Outcomes and Effectiveness Trials) and OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) have been adhered to. Phase 1 is data collection through a systematic review and qualitative study. Phase 2 is the COS development through a Delphi survey and consensus meetings with consensus definitions decided and agreed upon before the Delphi survey begins to avoid bias. Results: Phase 1 started at the end of 2019, following ethical approval in December 2019, and the project completion date is planned for the end of 2022 or beginning of 2023. Conclusions: This study should result in a consensus on a COS for cranioplasty, following TBI or stroke, to help standardize outcome reporting for future studies, which can be applied to future research and clinical services, help align future studies, build an increased understanding of cranioplasty and its impact on a patient’s function and recovery, and help standardize the evidence base. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37442

Many surgical adverse events are due to failures in nontechnical skills. Improving nontechnical skills has become a priority for surgical training organizations, yet there is little evidence to guide improvement activities. aim of this review was to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to improve surgeon nontechnical skills overall and by individual domains. A systematic search of Embase, Med-line (including PubMed), and PsycINFO were conducted using a predefined search strategy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and pre vs post intervention cohort studies from data-base inception to February 3, 2025, reporting change in surgeon nontechnical skills in the context of an improvement intervention were included. Two independent reviewers screened all articles first by title and abstract, then by full text. All disagreements were resolved by a third independent reviewer. Data was extracted by 2 independent reviewers in accordance with a predefined data extraction template in accordance with both PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Data was pooled using a random-effects model. Main outcome for meta-analysis was change in overall nontechnical skills measured either pre vs post intervention or control vs intervention. Secondary outcomes included change in nontechnical skill domains explored through narrative review. About 2682 studies were identified, after screening 65 were included comprised of 20 RCT's and 45 non-RCT's. Meta analysis demonstrated statistically significant association between nontechnical skill improvement and 4 intervention types: practice with debrief/feedback (SMD:1.80, 95%CI: 1.18,2.41), coaching (SMD:0.82, 95%CI: 0.25,1.40), checklists/standardized procedures (SMD:0.53, 95%CI: 0.12, 0.94), and didactic/workshop (SMD:1.26, 95%CI:0.49,2.04). Practice with debrief/feedback, coaching, and curriculum interventions demonstrated a trend towards improving individual NTS domains. The results of this meta-analysis provide evidence of the effectiveness of several intervention types to improve surgical nontechnical skill both overall and by individual domain. These effective interventions can be used to guide future non- technical skill improvement activities in real-world surgical settings.

Research guides evidence-based general surgery practice, advocacy, policy and resource allocation, but is seemingly lacking representation from those countries with greatest disease burden and mortality. Accordingly, we conducted a geographic study of publications in the most impactful general surgery journals worldwide. The six general surgery journals with the highest 2020 impact factors were selected. Only journals specific to general surgery were included. For all original articles over the past five years, the affiliated country and city were extracted for the first, second and last author. Number of publications were adjusted per capita, and compared to Human Development Index (HDI) using logistic regression. 8274 original articles were published in the top six ranked general surgery journals over 2016-2020, with 24,332 affiliated authors. Authors were most commonly associated with the US (27.88%), Japan (9.09%) and China (8.46%), or per capita, The Netherlands, Sweden and Singapore. There is a linear association between publishing in a top six journal and HDI of country of affiliation. Just four publications were from medium or low HDI countries over the period. Authorship in leading general surgery journals is predominantly from wealthy, Western countries. Authorship is associated with affiliation with a high HDI country, with few authors from medium or low HDI countries. There is a lack of representation in literature from Africa, Russia, and parts of Southeast Asia, and thus a lack of locally relevant evidence to guide surgical practice in these areas of high disease burden and low life expectancy.