Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Correspondence on ‘Percutaneous cervical sympathetic block to treat cerebral vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia: a review of the evidence' by Bombardieri et al
  1. Aaron Lawson McLean
  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Jena University Hospital – Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Dr Aaron Lawson McLean, Department of Neurosurgery, Jena University Hospital – Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany; aaron.lawsonmclean{at}med.uni-jena.de

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

I would like to offer comment on the recent paper ‘Cervical sympathetic block for the treatment of vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review’ by Bombardieri et al.1 This paper provides an overview of the current literature on cervical sympathetic block (CSB) as a treatment for vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) in patients who have had a subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) caused by a ruptured cerebral aneurysm.

The paper’s systematic review of previous studies is commendable. However, I believe that some important limitations of the current literature on CSB in aSAH patients are not fully addressed in the paper.

First, the studies included in the review are heterogeneous in terms of the type, dose, and volume of local anesthetic used, as well as the method of delivery. This makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the optimal type, dose, and delivery modality of CSB. …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @rnmcln

  • Contributors ALM was the sole contributor to the completion of this manuscript and made the final decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

  • Funding The author has not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles