Search

Minimally invasive methods in pilonidal sinus disease (PSD) surgery are becoming standard. Although long-term results are available for some techniques, long-term outcome data of patients after pit picking is lacking. We aimed at investigating perioperative and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing pit picking, Limberg flap or primary open surgery to treat PSD.

Aims: This EUROMACS study was conducted with the primary aim of investigating the association between a centre's annual caseload and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Methods and results: A total of 4802 patients identified between 2011 and 2020 from 35 participating centres were dichotomized based on the annual caseload of the treating centre at the time of device implant (≤30 vs. >30 LVAD implantations/year). The primary endpoint was 1‐year survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival analysis, device‐related adverse events and readmissions. Cumulative follow‐up was 10 003 patient‐years, with a median follow‐up of 1.54 years (interquartile range 0.52–3.15). Patients from higher volume centres more frequently presented in INTERMACS levels 1 and 2, suffered from right heart dysfunction and needed inotropic support. No difference was observed in adjusted 1‐year survival. Adjusted overall survival probability was lower in higher volume centres (p = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis of HeartMate 3 devices only, higher volume centres were associated with decreased odds of 1‐year survival (adjusted odds ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.20–0.97, p = 0.041). Similar findings were observed in the cumulative (i.e. learning curve) caseload analyses. Conclusion: In patients undergoing LVAD implantation, centre volume was not associated with 1‐year survival, but was related to device‐related adverse events. Patient profiles differed with respect to centre size. These findings underscore the necessity for ongoing quality improvement initiatives in all centres, regardless of their annual caseload. Efforts are needed to standardize patient selection and preconditioning to further improve patient outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of Review: Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) poses a multifaceted challenge in medical practice, necessitating a thorough and multidisciplinary approach for its diagnosis and treatment. This review examines current methods for addressing CPSP, highlighting both pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies. It covers the mechanisms and clinical effectiveness of these treatments in managing CPSP and emphasizes the importance of personalized treatment plans, given the varied causes of CPSP. Recent Findings: Recent advancements have illuminated diverse treatment modalities for CPSP. Pharmacotherapy spans from conventional analgesics to anticonvulsants and antidepressants, tailored to mitigate the neuropathic characteristics of CPSP. Non-pharmacological interventions, including physical therapy and psychological strategies, are pivotal in managing CPSP's chronic nature. For cases resistant to standard treatments, advanced interventions such as nerve blocks and surgical procedures like deep brain stimulation (DBS) or motor cortex stimulation (MCS) are considered. Additionally, innovative technologies such as neuromodulation techniques and personalized medicine are emerging as promising avenues to enhance therapeutic outcomes and improve quality of life for individuals grappling with CPSP. Summary: Modern approaches in managing CPSP require an interdisciplinary and patient-centric approach. Customizing treatment plans to address the specific etiology and symptoms of CPSP is crucial. Pharmacotherapy remains fundamental, encompassing medications such as anticonvulsants and antidepressants tailored to manage neuropathic pain. Integrating non-pharmacological interventions is crucial for providing comprehensive care. Additionally, investigating innovative technologies and personalized medicine presents promising opportunities to enhance treatment results and elevate the quality of life for those suffering from CPSP. Ultimately, an integrated approach that acknowledges the multifaceted nature of CPSP is essential for effective management and patient well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/importance Cleft palate surgery is associated with significant postoperative pain. Effective pain control can decrease stress and agitation in children undergoing cleft palate surgery and improve surgical outcomes. However, limited evidence often results in inadequate pain control after cleft palate surgery. Objectives The aim of this review was to evaluate the available evidence and to develop recommendations for optimal pain management after cleft palate surgery using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology. Evidence review MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews assessing pain in children undergoing cleft palate repair published in English language from July 2002, through August 2023. Findings Of 1048 identified studies, 19 randomized controlled trials and 4 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Interventions that improved postoperative pain, and are recommended, include suprazygomatic maxillary nerve block or palatal nerve block (if maxillary nerve block cannot be performed). Addition of dexmedetomidine to local anesthetic for suprazygomatic maxillary nerve block or, alternatively, as intravenous administration perioperatively is recommended. These interventions should be combined with a basic analgesic regimen including acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Of note, pre-incisional local anesthetic infiltration and dexamethasone were administered as a routine in several studies, however, because of limited procedure-specific evidence their contribution to pain relief after cleft palate surgery remains unknown. Conclusion The present review identified an evidence-based analgesic regimen for cleft palate surgery in pediatric patients. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022364788. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]