Atormac
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 11195  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (654 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1037    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded37    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
CORRESPONDENCE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 64  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 1104-1106

The middle path, the beaten path, or the uncharted path: Is neurosurgical decision making at a crossroad?


Department of Neurosurgery, Sree ChitraTirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum, Kerala, India

Date of Web Publication12-Sep-2016

Correspondence Address:
George C Vilanilam
Department of Neurosurgery, Sree ChitraTirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum, Kerala
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.190244

Rights and Permissions



How to cite this article:
Vilanilam GC. The middle path, the beaten path, or the uncharted path: Is neurosurgical decision making at a crossroad?. Neurol India 2016;64:1104-6

How to cite this URL:
Vilanilam GC. The middle path, the beaten path, or the uncharted path: Is neurosurgical decision making at a crossroad?. Neurol India [serial online] 2016 [cited 2019 Nov 22];64:1104-6. Available from: http://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2016/64/5/1104/190244




Sir,

The concept of surgical equipoise without compromising skill, bravado, and innovation, elucidated by Professor BS Sharma in an article [1] on the philosophy of the middle path, was a fascinating read. It provoked further thinking on whether neurosurgical decision making is at a philosophical crossroad, with the choice between the Beaten Path, the Middle Path, and the Uncharted Path lying before us [Figure 1] and [Table 1].
Figure 1: The philosophical “crossroad of neurosurgical decision making”

Click here to view
Table 1: Illustrations:“Crossroad of neurosurgical decision making”

Click here to view


Neurosurgical decision making: Complex yet conscientious

Every neurosurgical decision is made “in good faith” with the greater goal of curing the ailment and alleviating suffering.[2] However, decision making is unconsciously biased by the decision maker's cognitive skills, surgical expertise and past experiences,[3] as well as the patient's expectations, institutional culture, resources, and ethical and medicolegal propriety. Decision making is, thus, a complex and unpredictable phenomenon, even though it rests on the cornerstone of primum non nocere ( first do no harm).

The surgical decision making process has been scientifically explained by the dual process theory, wherein every treatment decision has two aspects, an analytical/explicit aspect and a nonanalytical/implicit aspect.[3] The explicit system is a higher order process based on conscious reasoning, judgement, and scientific evidence.

Example 1

A young man with a large clival chordoma and unilateral 6th nerve paresis managed with the “theoretically sound” decision of a transbasal approach and radical resection risking fresh deficits.

The implicit system is intuition and unconscious impulse based and hence, heavily influenced by past experiences and memories.

Example 2

A tendency to be conservative with a benign, large skull base lesion just because a few earlier patients with radical resections had a morbid course.

In reality, most neurosurgical decisions involve a close interplay between both the implicit and explicit decision making processes, that is, a balance between theory and pragmatism. A paradigm shift in the goals of neurosurgical care from the earlier “preservation of life” to the present “quality of life” also influences the care of ailments.[4]

The beaten path of surgical bravado

To set things right, neurosurgeons most often trust the surgical scalpel much more than wonder drug molecules. Radical surgical efforts were considered scientifically and conceptually appropriate since time immemorial. Traditionally, the emphasis has been on “radiological cures,” that is, the postoperative imaging being devoid of the tumor or showing the deformity corrected. If every radical surgical effort translates into a disease-free and disability-free survival, then it is worth every ounce of blood lost and the hours of surgical toil. However, unfortunately, outcomes may not be commensurate with the effort. Paraphrasing James Ausman,[4] ”Skull base surgeons seem more interested in the surgery itself than the patients.” The technicality of the procedure often takes an upper hand over the quality of life outcome measure. We are often swept away by the awe around the technique, thereby paying less heed to the life behind it.

The middle path of clinical equipoise

As the natural history of many neurosurgical illnesses is now well known, many neurosurgeons with a lifetime of experience choose a “middle path philosophy.” There is less emphasis on radical procedures and “radiological cures.” Every neurosurgical endeavour is balanced by the standard of care, available skills, resources, and the treating neurosurgeon's philosophy. Cure, with preservation of the quality of life, without compromise in skill and bravado, is the hallmark of the optimum care.

The uncharted path of unexplored pursuits

Smooth seas don't make skilful sailors. If it doesn't challenge you, it doesn't change you. Hence, the incurable aspect of every neurosurgical ailment offers scope for an uncharted path. It is a window of opportunity to evaluate new treatment modalities, innovate surgical techniques, and challenge the limits of medical science. Investigational yet scientifically sound therapies, randomized control trials with new molecules, and surgical renovations could bring about an earth-shattering metamorphosis in conquering new frontiers. The fine line between palliating an incurable brain tumor and curing it maybe perhaps just a “eureka moment” away.

The “integrated diagnosis” concept

Current evidence favors the “integrated diagnosis” concept for CNS tumors,[5] which incorporates the histology, grade, molecular features, symptomatology and response to therapy.

The 2016 central nervous system World Health Organisation (WHO) classification [5] suggests conceptual and practical advances in our understanding of brain tumors. It brings about a major overhauling of the classification of diffuse gliomas, medulloblastomas and other embryonal tumors, and incorporates new entities that are defined by both histology and molecular features, including a glioblastoma, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-wild type and glioblastoma, IDH-mutant; diffuse midline glioma, H3 K27M–mutant; V-Rel Avian Reticuloendotheliosis Viral Oncogene Homolog A (RELA) fusion–positive ependymoma; medulloblastoma, Wingless-type (WNT)-activated and medulloblastoma, sonic hedgehog (SHH)-activated; and embryonal tumour with multi-layered rosettes, C19MC-altered. Terms like gliomatosis cerebri and even the primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET) have become archaic and obsolete.

However, in “resource challenged” nations like India, where many centres lack resources and access to molecular techniques and immunostains, making an “integrated diagnosis” still remains a challenge.

To each his own: Bespoke neurosurgical care

The recent focus of neuropathological tumour diagnoses (WHO,2016 classification) has been to avoid “umbrella” terms and “waste basket” categorisation because there is a certain uniqueness in every tumor. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle cites limits to the precision with which physical properties of a particle can be simultaneously known. Humans, an “amalgamation of uncertain particles,” aren't different. Disease 'X' managed by the theoretically sound and evidence based surgical treatment 'Y', need not always have the best outcome 'Z'. Thus, despite being scientifically appropriate and surgically skilful, treatment outcomes may not always achieve the intended best and have an element of inexplicable uncertainty and unpredictability.

To sum up the philosophy, neurosurgical treatment decisions have to be “tailor-made”(bespoke) for each individual and cannot be a “one-size-fits-all” generic formula. Care, based on a particular disease or diagnosis and its survival data isn't enough to get the best outcome for a particular patient. A certain man's glioma is different from another man's and has its own unique molecular signature. So would be its symptomatology, treatment response, prognosis, and survival.

Thus, the management of every ailment needs to be balanced by the natural history of the disease, the surgical expertise available, the quality of life outcome measures, the patient's and caregiver's expectations, etc.[6],[7] At times, a cognitively and functionally preserved independent existence, though shortlived, could mean much more than a prolonged survival dependent on others.[8]

Sometimes there is a conflict between emotion and science, philosophy, and standard of care. When facing difficult moments in neurosurgical decision making, our path is sometimes lit up by these words of anonymous authorship,

“It's impossible,” said pride,

“It's risky,” said experience,

“It's pointless,” said reason

“Give it a try,” whispered the heart,”

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Sharma BS. The philosophy of 'middle path' in neurosurgery. Neurol India 2016;64:208-14.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.
Fargen KM, Friedman WA. The science of medical decision making: Neurosurgery, errors, and personal cognitive strategies for improving quality of care. World Neurosurg 2014;82:e21-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Pelaccia T, Tardif J, Triby E, Charlin B. An analysis of clinical reasoning through a recent and comprehensive approach: The dual-process theory. Med Educ Online 2011;16:5890.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ausman JI. A revolution in skull base surgery: The quality of life matters. Surg Neurol 2006;65:635-6.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A, Figarella-Branger D, Cavenee WK, et al. The 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: A summary. Acta Neuropathol 2015:1-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Yong RL, Lonser RR. Surgery for glioblastoma multiforme: Striking a balance. World Neurosurg 2011;76:528-30.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.
Watts C. Neurosurgery: A profession or a technical trade? Surg Neurol Int 2014;5:168.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
8.
Awad IA, AANS Publications Committee. Philosophy of neurological surgery. American Association of Neurological Surgeons; 1995, Ed. 1 Nov 23.  Back to cited text no. 8
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow