Download PDF
Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · J Neuroanaesth Crit Care 2025; 12(02): 67-68
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1812316
Editorial

Reappraising Sitting Craniotomy: Perioperative Risks and Patient Outcomes

Authors

  • Gyaninder P. Singh 

    1   Department of Neuroanesthesiology and Neurocritical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

  • Shiva P. Kandukuri 

    1   Department of Neuroanesthesiology and Neurocritical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

  • Parmod K. Bithal 

    1   Department of Neuroanesthesiology and Neurocritical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
Further Information
Also available at
  Permissions and Reprints

The sitting position for posterior fossa surgery has long been regarded as a valuable tool, primarily favored for its better surgical exposure, gravity-assisted drainage of blood and cerebrospinal fluid, and a cleaner operative field allowing the surgeon to operate with greater precision. Despite these advantages, its use has declined over the decades owing to concerns over serious perioperative complications, especially venous air embolism (VAE), tension pneumocephalus, quadriparesis, and macroglossia. However, growing evidence in recent years indicates that the sitting position is a safe and viable option for neurosurgical procedures, without compromising patient outcomes.[1] [2] Early studies in the 1980s and 1990s suggested high rates of VAE and catastrophic sequelae, leading many centers to abandon the technique.[3] [4] Considering the benefits and the serious perioperative risks associated, the debate over its safe use still continues. The question is whether the sitting craniotomy can continue to claim its rightful position in contemporary practice with advances in monitoring, anesthetic care, and surgical expertise.

Among the complications associated with sitting position craniotomy, VAE remains the most significant and feared complication. The elevated operative field above the heart level predisposes to entrainment of air into venous channels, particularly from diploic or emissary veins. Reported incidence varies depending on the sensitivity of monitoring, ranging from <10% with clinical detection to >70% with trans-esophageal echocardiography.[3] [4] While many episodes are subclinical, clinically significant VAE may manifest with hypotension, desaturation, or even paradoxical embolism in patients with a patent foramen ovale.[4] Preventive maneuvers such as adequate hydration, judicious use of positive end-expiratory pressure, maintenance of venous pressure above atmospheric at the operative site, and the ready availability of central venous aspiration techniques have substantially mitigated morbidity.[1] [4] Other implications of the sitting posture include hemodynamic instability from venous pooling in the lower limbs, reduced venous return, and, in rare cases, compromised cerebral perfusion to the brainstem.[5] Cervical spine flexion in vulnerable patients can result in neurological injury,[6] [7] and macroglossia due to venous congestion may compromise the airway. A rare but catastrophic complication is tension pneumocephalus, which requires immediate management.[8] Other perioperative issues include prolonged mechanical ventilation following brainstem handling[1] and cranial nerve dysfunction, particularly involving lower cranial nerves.

Despite these concerns, neurosurgeons continue to value the sitting position for its evident benefits. Excellent access to the posterior fossa and pineal region, improved visualization of deep-seated lesions, and reduced intraoperative venous bleeding remain compelling arguments for its continued use. From a physiological standpoint, the upright posture improves respiratory mechanics by improving the diaphragmatic excursion.

More recent evidence paints a different picture. In this issue of the journal, Balakrishnan et al present a retrospective analysis of 188 patients, reporting an overall VAE incidence of 20.7% but found no correlation with increased mortality, new neurological deficits, or poor outcomes.[1] In fact, over 88% of patients had good neurological recovery at discharge. Similarly, Ganslandt et al, in a series of 600 cases, found that while VAE was common, it was rarely clinically significant, and patient outcomes were favorable in most cases.[2] Comparative studies have also questioned whether the sitting position is inherently more dangerous than other positions. Black et al observed no difference in outcomes between patients undergoing posterior fossa craniectomy in sitting and horizontal positions.[9] More recently, Baro et al found similar complication rates between sitting and prone positioning in pediatric low-grade posterior fossa tumours.[10]

Pediatric patients are reported to have a higher incidence of VAE than adults, likely due to anatomical and physiological differences such as smaller venous capacitance and relatively negative venous pressure at the operative site. There is variability in the reported incidence of VAE between pediatric and adult populations in the literature.[7] [11] However, Balakrishnan et al[1] have observed a similar incidence of VAE between adults and pediatric patients, similar to both Harrison et al and Bithal et al, who reported comparable incidences of VAE in adults and children, without demonstrable impact on long-term outcomes.[11] [12]

Although the role of nitrous oxide in the sitting position has long been debated, the recent study by Balakrishnan et al has found that the intraoperative use of nitrous oxide was not associated with an increased risk of complications or mortality.[1] Moreover, the rate of perioperative complications, including mortality, was similar between patients with and without the occurrence of VAE in sitting position craniotomy.[1]

This evolving body of evidence underscores the central debate: whether the sitting craniotomy should be abandoned because of its potential for catastrophic complications, or preserved because of its unique surgical advantages. This is emblematic of a broader principle in perioperative medicine: risk cannot be eliminated, only anticipated and managed. What is required now are contemporary data–multicenter prospective registries that quantify complication rates in the current era of advanced monitoring and refined techniques. Such evidence would allow us to move beyond anecdote and historical apprehension toward a balanced, evidence-based perspective. Equally important is the training of future generations. With the declining use of the sitting position craniotomy, there is a risk that expertise will erode. If the practice is to survive as an option, it must be taught safely, judiciously, and under the guidance of experienced mentors. Otherwise, it may fade into disuse, not because it lacks value, but because the collective skill to perform it safely has been lost.

The sitting position in posterior fossa surgery remains a double-edged sword: associated with unique perioperative challenges, yet offering unmatched surgical advantages for selected lesions. To dismiss it entirely would be to deny neurosurgeons a valuable tool; to employ it indiscriminately would be reckless. The challenge today is to refine its use—through rigorous selection, vigilant monitoring, and collaborative practice—so that the balance of risk and benefit consistently favors the patient.



Publication History

Article published online:
25 November 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India