Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing neurosurgery by enhancing diagnostic precision, surgical planning, and postoperative management. However, its integration raises ethical concerns related to bias, privacy, accountability, and the potential dehumanization of healthcare. This review focuses on navigating these challenges while maximizing AI’s potential in improving patient care. Methodology: A narrative review was conducted by identifying studies from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases. The search utilized the following keywords: “artificial intelligence,” “neurosurgery,” “machine learning,” “data privacy,” “robotic surgery,” “ethics,” and “bias.” The review primarily focused on issues of dataset bias, data privacy, and the need for transparency and accountability in clinical decision-making. Results and critical insights: AI significantly improves diagnostic accuracy and the management of neurological conditions; however, it also poses risks, such as exacerbating healthcare disparities and compromising patient data security. Recommended strategies include the development of ethical frameworks, inclusion of diverse datasets, and fostering surgeon–AI collaboration to ensure equitable outcomes. Conclusion: AI holds immense promise in enhancing neurosurgical diagnostics, surgical planning, and postoperative care. Nonetheless, its responsible integration demands robust ethical and regulatory frameworks that prioritize patient safety, transparency, and equity. Interdisciplinary collaboration and continuous real-world validation remain essential to address ongoing clinical and ethical challenges as AI technologies evolve.

Background: By integrating evidence-based pre-, intra-, and postoperative therapies, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have transformed perioperative care in numerous surgical specialties. Although their use in neurosurgery aims to maximize patient recovery, minimize complications, and reduce hospital stays, the evidence remains heterogeneous, and large randomized controlled trials are scarce. Objectives: This narrative review contrasts the clinical outcomes, advantages, and challenges of ERAS protocols with those of conventional postoperative care in neurosurgery, with a focus on cranial, spinal, pediatric, cancer, and functional procedures. Methods: A thematic synthesis of peer-reviewed clinical evidence was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar (2000–2025). Studies comparing ERAS and standard care were reviewed for outcomes including length of stay (LOS), complications, pain control, opioid use, and patient satisfaction. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews were considered for context only, while emphasis was placed on primary clinical data. Results: ERAS protocols were associated with reduced LOS (3.9 → 3.4 days in spine; 13 → 10 days in cranial surgery), lower postoperative complications [fever −7.9%, unplanned intensive care unit admissions −34.1%], and decreased opioid and patient-controlled analgesia use (−12.1% and −60.2%, respectively). Patient recovery and functional independence improved, although 30-day readmissions slightly increased (+1.0%) before declining by 90 days (−0.3%). Implementation remains inconsistent due to resource limitations, challenges with multidisciplinary coordination, and protocol variability across institutions. Conclusion: This narrative review demonstrates that ERAS protocols improve recovery, reduce complications, and lower opioid dependence in neurosurgical patients compared with standard care. Despite these advantages, variation in protocol adherence and the limited number of high-quality RCTs restrict universal adoption. Future multicenter trials and standardized frameworks are essential to validate and optimize ERAS integration across neurosurgical practice.

Background: Neurodegenerative diseases (NDs) such as Parkinson’s disease (PD), Alzheimer’s disease (AD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Huntington’s disease (HD) are set apart by progressive neuronal loss and concomitant functional decline. Traditional therapies are equipped with only symptomatic relief, devoid of neurorestorative properties. Stem-cell-based therapies have the potential to revolutionize neurological care by replenishing lost cells, mitigating inflammation, and fostering a neuroprotective environment. Objectives: This narrative review aims to appraise the treatment potential of various stem cell types in managing NDs, highlighting their functional pathways, delivery methods, and current experimental validation. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was carried out based on data retrieved from PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Thirty-one studies that fulfill PICO criteria and only English-language publications are incorporated in this review. No part of the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation was conducted using artificial intelligence. Results: Stem cells, including embryonic stem cells, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), induced pluripotent stem cells, and neural stem cells, possess distinctive regenerative properties. MSC-derived exosomes can traverse the blood–brain barrier and improve nerve cell longevity. Administration routes such as intravenous, intranasal, and direct brain transplantation are being studied. Neurodegenerative conditions such as PD, AD, HD, and ALS have been widely studied for therapeutic benefits. Conclusion: Regardless of their potential, stem cell therapies raise health risks, including neoplastic growth and immunological incompatibility, alongside bioethical issues. Developments in genetic modification, nanotechnology, and preconditioning strategies are being analyzed to optimize outcomes. Long-term research, harmonization of protocols, and extended patient follow-up are essential for the safe and effective development of medical applications.

Background: Effective hemorrhage control is essential in managing trauma and surgical patients, with uncontrolled bleeding being a leading cause of mortality. Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS), a hemostatic agent historically used in Anatolia, has gained recognition for its ability to modulate red blood cell–fibrinogen interactions to form a stable protein network for rapid bleeding cessation. Objective: This review explores the multifaceted applications of ABS, evaluating its efficacy, safety, and potential therapeutic roles across various medical fields, including hemostasis, wound healing, antimicrobial activity, and antineoplastic effects. Methods: A comprehensive synthesis of clinical trials, case reports, and experimental studies was conducted to assess the performance and implications of ABS. This narrative review highlights its application in trauma, surgery, dental procedures, and other clinical contexts, and compares its efficacy with that of established hemostatic agents. Results: ABS demonstrates significant efficacy in achieving hemostasis in diverse clinical settings, particularly in patients with coagulopathies. Its wound healing and antimicrobial properties enhance its therapeutic versatility. Neurotoxic effects of ABS are also reported, with recent studies providing mixed evidence on nerve safety in animal models. Emerging evidence suggests potential antineoplastic effects, with studies reporting apoptosis induction in cancer cells and protective effects in experimental models. Conclusion: ABS is a promising hemostatic agent with applications in bleeding control, wound healing, and infection management. While it has shown efficacy in various clinical settings, its safety profile remains a subject of debate, with some studies confirming its biocompatibility and others reporting potential neurotoxic effects. Further large-scale human studies are needed to clarify its long-term safety and establish standardized clinical guidelines for its use.