ReviewAnesthesiology research and practice2026
Intraoperative Hemodynamic Management and Cerebral Protection During Awake Craniotomy: Evidence-Based Approaches.
Review in Anesthesiology research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intraoperative Hemodynamic Management and Cerebral Protection During Awake Craniotomy: Evidence-Based Approaches.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Awake craniotomy is a standard neurosurgical technique that enables real-time assessment of brain functions during tumor resection, with high success rates. Although highly effective, the procedure is associated with hemodynamic disturbances, including blood pressure variability and impaired cerebral perfusion, compromising intraoperative safety. A focused literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar was performed to identify relevant studies on intraoperative hemodynamic management during awake craniotomy. Findings were synthesized narratively to summarize current evidence, highlight emerging strategies, and identify knowledge gaps. Hypertension (8%-34%) was the most common disturbance, often triggered by painful surgical stimuli or emergence from sedation, with repeat craniotomy, impaired autoregulation, and glioma pathology as additional risk factors. Hypotension (10%-11%) was linked to perioperative stroke and mortality. Cerebral hypoperfusion contributed to poor outcomes, with stroke up to 23% and neurological morbidity in 68% of patients. Preventive strategies, such as scalp blocks, individualized blood pressure targets, and the use of dexmedetomidine and midazolam, improved intraoperative stability, while short-acting agents, including esmolol and labetalol, were preferred for rapid control. Advanced monitoring modalities, including arterial lines, near-infrared spectroscopy, and cerebral autoregulation indices, enhance safety and support accurate functional mapping. Hemodynamic instability during awake craniotomy influences outcomes. Current evidence supports multimodal prevention, tailored blood pressure control, and short-acting pharmacological agents; practice variation and the lack of randomized trials limit standardization. Looking ahead, advanced monitoring and emerging AI systems may provide new opportunities to enhance cerebral protection and optimize patient safety. This review summarizes evidence on intraoperative hemodynamic control in awake craniotomy, emphasizing strategies that enable maximal safe resection while preserving neurological function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.