Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
« Back 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next »

July/August 2008

A Messy Art

Continued from page 4

By Katrina S. Firlik

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

I complete the tumor resection (that is, removal), which is the quickest part of the operation; this particular tumor is easily "suckable," in the surgeon's vernacular. Also, with metastatic tumors such as this, the margins are relatively distinct; you can usually tell tumor apart from brain without too much difficulty. With primary brain tumors (gliomas, which arise from the brain itself), the tumor-brain interface can be very indistinct, and this is where navigation has yet an additional benefit. It can be used during the resection, to assess how deep you are within the tumor and how much work still remains to be done.

But though navigation can be a big help in tumor resection, it's not without its difficulties. Sometimes a new nurse or resident forgets that the camera needs an unbroken sight line to the wand and keeps sticking a head or an arm in the way, or a small spot of blood on one of the wand's shiny metal balls temporarily prevents the system from working. And those technological woes are nothing compared with the physio­logical problem of brain shift. Once the skull is opened, its contents can move a little: sometimes cerebrospinal fluid leaks out, causing the brain to sink downward; other times, the swollen brain bulges outward; and as more tumor tissue is removed, the surrounding brain can partially collapse into the cavity. Whatever the reason, the result is that after all the care we took in registration, the MRI images no longer match up with the patient's brain. This may not significantly affect the operation, but in some cases it's such a serious challenge that the surgeon must abandon the navigation technology altogether and rely on her own judgment.

Following the tumor resection, I spend the next several minutes making sure there's no ongoing bleeding. Then I close, which requires replacing the bone flap by affixing it to the skull with thin titanium plates and screws. Placing tiny screws into the skull presents its own set of problems--admittedly minor, but disproportionately annoying at the end of the operation. Sometimes a screw fails to gain adequate purchase in the bone and continues to spin freely with each twist of the wrist; or it falls off the diminutive screwdriver and gets lost in the folds of the sterile drapes; or it breaks through a very thin portion of the skull, threatening to irritate the tissue underneath. At this point, though, any expletives uttered by the surgeon are drowned out. With the more delicate parts of the operation behind us, "closing music" plays at high volume.

The two final steps of the operation--sewing the scalp closed and placing the surgical dressing--are refreshingly simple, low tech, and fiddle free. I remove my patient's head from the clamp, watch her wake up, and turn down the music.

New and Improved
Neurosurgery is an unusual specialty, in part because it encompasses such a broad range of operations. Cardiac surgery (in adults, at least) revolves largely around just two major procedures: bypass surgery and valve surgery. Neurosurgery, in contrast, covers operations on the brain, spine, peripheral nerves, and carotid arteries. And particularly within the categories of brain and spine operations, there are dozens of variations. Any one neurosurgeon, although he or she may have been trained to perform the entire spectrum of procedures, cannot actually do so in practice. So how do we neurosurgeons decide which cases to include or exclude? How do we decide which particular disorders to treat?

One big factor in the decision is the technology used to treat a given disorder. That may sound a bit backwards. Wouldn't a physician's decision about which cases to treat be based on more profound factors, like a passion to help those afflicted with a particular disease? In reality, though, technologic considerations may trump intellectual or emotional ones.

« Back 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next »
July/August

Would you like to read more articles from the July/August issue?

This article is from the July/August Issue of Technology Review. To read other articles from this issue simply register for My.TechnologyReview.com. It's free.

Subscribe today and save up to 41% »

Comments

  • Very interesting article - thanks Katrina
    wolfhouse9 on 07/16/2008 at 11:43 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    Thanks Katrina for giving a rare glimpse into what its like to be the person who goes in to someone's brain. That was the profession above all that smart people strived for... "I am going to be a brain surgeion..."
    I was troubled by the old-fashioned suction used to suck out the tumor though.  (My father was a dentist and it didn't seem like there was much improvement from his dental suction catheters...) It might be a real opportunity for an engineering person to hook up with a brain surgeon and come up with some innovative solutions to the old-fashioned tools. I also think that someone could come up with a better fastener than screws to re connect the skull plate. Especially since she had obviously had problems with screws more than once... It seems screws are OK to hold a shattered femur or other big-bones in orthopedic surgery, but as she described that they often do not grip well in the skull.
    I appreciate the opportunity to see a glimpse of what its like to do brain surgery.  Thanks Katrina!
    One last comment:
    I understand the value of providing an online magazine on cutting edge technology. But Technology Review's use of every possible annoying link for advertising has crossed a line. I am sure I am not the only person who feels frustrated with the overwhelming assault of advertising you hit us with. You click on the article and are re-directed to advertising... Skip this add and go to the article. Pop up blockers go into overtime... then if you slightly moved your curser over any highlighted item in the article you are trapped into some slimy advertisement or video.  I have to say that M.I.T. and the Technology Review editors have made it maddeningly frustrating to read your articles.  I am one unwanted video clip away from dropping my subscription. Be informed Tech Review, that I am sure I am not the only person who is much more selective on opening your articles.  I probably read 1 out of three or four articles I used to, because of your annoying advertising.  You are ruining what once was a very nice newsletter by your oversaturation of ad space and use of unwanted videos.
    Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review November/December 2008
Sun + Water = Fuel
An MIT chemist has opened the way to making hydrogen fuel from water using sunlight.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology