Correspondence  |   September 2016
In Reply
Author Notes
  • University of California, San Francisco, California (A.W.G.). adrian.gelb@ucsf.edu
  • (Accepted for publication May 27, 2016.)
    (Accepted for publication May 27, 2016.)×
Article Information
Correspondence
Correspondence   |   September 2016
In Reply
Anesthesiology 9 2016, Vol.125, 606. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001221
Anesthesiology 9 2016, Vol.125, 606. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001221
We thank Professor Bithal and Dr. Tomar for their interest in our study.1 
Their first question suggests that these patients had not been appropriately evaluated before and during the scheduled craniotomy. The study, as we indicated, was performed in the operating room immediately before the craniotomy. The patients had undergone all necessary and appropriate evaluations including imaging before surgery being scheduled. We see nothing to be gained by including every patient’s preoperative assessment in the article beyond the tumor diagnosis and imaging information. Further, pathologic diagnosis was obtained at craniotomy, and this was the basis for our reporting the pathologies and subgroups of glioma grades.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large