Management of Anaesthesia

  • Federica Tosi
  • Orazio Genovese
  • Tamara Jovanovic
  • Massimiliano Visocchi
Part of the Acta Neurochirurgica Supplement book series (NEUROCHIRURGICA, volume 125)


Surgical treatment of the craniovertebral junction (CVJ) requires excellent management by the anaesthetist. Patients undergoing this type of surgery have a wide range of concomitant diseases. Therefore, before proceeding to CVJ surgery, it is recommended to analyse the clinical aspects of the patient that could complicate the outcome of the surgical procedure.

In this paper we aim to establish what constitutes the best surgical and anaesthesia management of these patients. We consider airway management, trying to identify the gold standard for the patient. We also consider the most appropriate intraoperative approach to guarantee the best management of the patient.


Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

No financial support was received for this work.


  1. 1.
    White AA, Johnson RM, Panjabi MM. Biomechanical analysis of clinical stability in the cervical spine. Clin Orthop. 1975;109:85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Visocchi M, Fernandez EM, Ciampini A, Di Rocco C. Reducible and irreducible os odontoideum treated with posterior wiring, instrumentation and fusion. Past or present? Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2009;151:1265–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Visocchi M, Pietrini D, Tufo T, Fernandez E, Di Rocco C. Preoperative irreducible C1–C2 dislocations: intraoperative reduction and posterior fixation. The always posterior strategy. Acta Neurochir (Wein). 2009;151:551–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Menezes AH. Surgical approaches: postoperative care and complications “posterolateral–far lateral transcondylar approach to the ventral foramen magnum and upper cervical spinal canal”. Childs Nerv Syst. 2008;24:1203–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Menezes AH. Specific entities affecting the craniocervical region: Down's syndrome. Childs Nerv Syst. 2008;24:1165–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sharma D, Prabhakar H, Bithal PK, Ali Z, Singh GP, Rath GP, Dash HH. Predicting difficult laryngoscopy in acromegaly: a comparison of upper lip bite test with modified Mallampati classification. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2010;22:138–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khan ZH, Kashfi A, Ebrahimkhani E. A comparison of the upper lip bite test (a simple new technique) with modified Mallampati classification in predicting difficulty in endotracheal intubation: a prospective blinded study. Anesth Analg. 2003;96:595–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hrabayashi Y, Fujta A, Seo N, Sugimoto H. Cervical spine movement during laryngoscopy using the airway scope compared with Macintosh laryngoscope. Anaesthesia. 2007;207:1050–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bhardwaj N, Jain K, Rao M, Mandal AK. Assessment of cervical spine movement during laryngoscopy with Macintosh and Trueview laryngoscopes. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2013;29(3):308–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Serocki G, Bein B, Scholz J, Dorges V. Management of the predicted difficult airway: a comparison of conventional blade laryngoscopy with video-assisted blade laryngoscopy and the GlideScope. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27:24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    White MC, Marsh CJ, Beringer RM, Nolan JA, Choi AY, Medlock KE, Mason DG. A randomised, controlled trial comparing the Airtraq™ optical laryngoscope with conventional laryngoscopy in infants and children. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:226–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Visocchi M. The craniovertebral junction: posterior and anterior approaches. State of art. Crit Rev Neurosurg WFNS. 2010;1:1–11.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology. 2003;98:1269–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mason KP, Lerman J. Dexmedetomidine in children: current knowledge and future applications. Anesth Analg. 2011;113:1129–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sagi HC, Beutler W, Carroll E, Connolly PJ. Airway complications associated with surgery on the anterior cervical spine. Spine. 2002;27:949–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sagi HC, et al. Airway complications associated with surgery on the anterior cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(9):949–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peterson DO, Drummond DC, Todd MM. Effects of halothane, enflurane, isoflurane and nitrous oxide on somatosensory potential in humans. Anesthesiology. 1986;65:35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sala F, Krzan MJ, Deletis V. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in pediatric neurosurgery: why, when, how? Childs Nerv Syst. 2002;18:264–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kombos T, Suess O, Da Silva C, Ciklatekerlio O, Nobis V, Brock M. Impact of somatosensory evoked potential monitoring on cervical surgery. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2003;20(2):122–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sala F, Squintani G, Tramontano V, Coppola A, Gerosa M. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during surgery for Chiari malformations. Neurol Sci. 2011;32:S317–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Federica Tosi
    • 1
  • Orazio Genovese
    • 1
  • Tamara Jovanovic
    • 1
  • Massimiliano Visocchi
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Anaesthesiology and Intensive CareCatholic University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Institute of NeurosurgeryCatholic University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations