Background and Goal of Study: Xenon, a noble gas with anesthetic properties, has become more interesting for the clinical neurosurgery use after some brain protective effects were discovered. Animal experiments could show an improved hypoxia tolerance in the brain and better neurological outcome . The aim of this study was to analyze retrospectively the clinical outcome of neurosurgery patients after using xenon anesthesia. We expected this group of patients benefits more from the use of xenon than other.
Materials and Methods: In a retrospective examination we studied 120 patients with n=60 in the control group (TCI with propofol) and n=60 in den xenon group (Xe). For the data collecting of both groups we used the patient documents. Each TCI patient was matched to a Xe patient with the criteria: identical sex and diagnosis (glioblastoma, astrocytoma, menigeoma, metastasis), age +/− 5 years. If there were more than one match-pair we drawn a matching TCI patient. Study measurements were the transit time between end of operation and arrival in recovery room (RR) as criteria for over all recovery and complications, postoperative duration of stay at the RR, ICU/IMC and of total postoperative hospital stay.
Results and Discussion: The TCI group was similar to the Xe group with regards to age, sex, diagnosis and time of surgery. All data are presented in Table 1. We considered all postoperative ICU/IMC stays as well as cases that were transferred second time to ICU/IMC. 13 patients (both groups) were transferred directly from the operating room to the ICU/IMC and 3 Xe patients were transferred directly from the RR to normal ward. No significant differences of transit time or duration of hospital stay were identified.
Conclusion(s): We can see a trend in favor of xenon with respect to the total time of hospital stay (7,4% shorter; p=1,34) and ICU/IMC time (10,9% shorter; p=0,095). These results are pleasant, but also indicate the need for further research in the use of xenon for neurosurgery.
 Ma D, Yang H, Lynch J, et al. Anesthesiology. 2003;98:690-8