Search

Summary: Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused an important reduction in surgical activities during the first wave. Aim of this retrospective time-trend analysis was to examine whether also during the second wave in fall and winter 2020/2021 surgical interventions decreased. Methods: Absolut numbers and types of surgeries in a tertiary university hospital during the second COVID-19 wave in fall/winter 2020/2021 were collected from the surgical planning software and compared with the same time frame over the last 5 years. In a second step, the reduction of surgical interventions during the second wave was compared with the reduction of surgical procedures during the first wave in spring 2020 at the same hospital. Results: Despite a higher 7‑day incidence of COVID-19 infection and a higher number of patients needing ICU treatment during the second wave, the reduction of surgical interventions was 3.22% compared to 65.29% during the first wave (p < 0.0001). Elective surgical interventions decreased by 88.63% during the first wave compared to 1.79% during the second wave (p < 0.0001). Emergency and oncological interventions decreased by 35.17% during the first wave compared to 5.15% during the second wave (p : 0.0007) and 47.59% compared to 3.89% (p < 0.0001), respectively. Surgical activity reduction in our institution was less pronounced despite higher occupancy of ICU beds during the second COVID-19 wave in fall/winter 2020/2021. Conclusion: Better understanding of the disease, adequate supply of disposables and improved interdisciplinary day by day management of surgical and ICU resources may have contributed to this improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of Review: Low back pain affects at least 80% of individuals at some point in their lifetime and is the fifth most common reason for physician visits in the USA. Treatment of an acute episode of LBP generally includes rest, activity modification, physical therapy, NSAIDs, and patient education. Recent Findings: A small percentage of patients will develop chronic pain lasting > 6 months duration. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is one of the main pillars of regenerative medicine, as its release of bioactive proteins supports the aim of RM of restoring the anatomical function in degenerative conditions. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are multipotent stem cells, multipotent progenitor cells, or marrow stromal cells found in various body tissues, including bone marrow, lung, and adipose tissue. Evidence from well-designed case–control or cohort studies for the use of PRP and MSCs in lumbar facet joint, lumbar epidural, and sacroiliac joint injections is currently described as level IV evidence. PRP and MSCs are used autogenously to help facilitate the healing process, and their injection has been studied in the long-term management of discogenic low back pain. PRP has been compared to steroid injections in the sacroiliac joint for chronic low back pain, with favorable results. MSCs have also been shown to be useful in intervertebral disc regeneration and treatment of chronic low back pain associated with degenerative disc disease. Summary: Currently, the price for these treatments is extremely high, and thus the standard of care continues to be steroid injections and other treatments. This could change, however, with more robust data and research on the safety and long-term efficacy of biologics compared to other interventional management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Anaesthesist is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia / Journal Canadien d'Anesthésie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: The Ambu® Aura Gain™ is a new second-generation supraglottic airway device that-because of a wider curvature and a wide airway tube-allows fibreoptic intubation. The purpose of this study was to assess the oropharyngeal leak pressure of the Ambu® Aura GainTM compared with the Ambu® Aura Once™.Methods: In this randomized non-blinded crossover trial with 50 patients aged 18 months to six years (10-20 kg), we compared the Ambu® Aura Gain™ and the Ambu® Aura Once™ for airway maintenance in anesthetized, non-paralyzed participants. Our primary outcome was oropharyngeal leak pressure. Time of insertion, success rates for each device, evaluation of fibreoptic view and ventilation quality during anesthesia, as well as possible complications (e.g., blood staining) were assessed.Results: There were no differences in first and overall insertion attempt rates (Ambu® Aura Once™ 50/50 (100%) vs Ambu® Aura Gain™ 50/50 (100%). Mean (standard deviation) oropharyngeal leak pressure was found to be significantly higher for Ambu® Aura Gain™ than it was for Ambu® Aura Once™ [21 (7) vs 19 (6) cmH2O, respectively; mean difference [MD] - 2 cmH2O; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 3.8 to - 1.0; P = 0.001]. Mean (SD) insertion time was faster for Ambu® Aura Once™ than for Ambu® Aura Gain™ [8 (3) vs 10 (4) seconds, respectively; MD, - 2 sec; 95% CI, - 2.9 to - 1.2; P < 0.001]. There were no differences in ventilation quality, fibreoptic view, or blood staining.Conclusion: We conclude that Ambu® Aura Gain™ is a good alternative to the Ambu® Aura Once™ and an efficient device for children in this age group.Trial Registration: www.clincaltrials.gov (NCT02811042). Registered 23 June 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia / Journal Canadien d'Anesthésie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)