Search

BACKGROUND: High intraoperative PEEP with recruitment manoeuvres may improve perioperative outcomes. We re-examined this question by conducting a patient-level meta-analysis of three clinical trials in adult patients at increased risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who underwent non-cardiothoracic and non-neurological surgery. METHODS: The three trials enrolled patients at 128 hospitals in 24 countries from February 2011 to February 2018. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with low tidal volume. Analyses were performed using one-stage, two-level, mixed modelling (site as a random effect; trial as a fixed effect). The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications within the first week, analysed using mixed-effect logistic regression. Pre-specified subgroup analyses of nine patient characteristics and seven procedure and care-delivery characteristics were also performed. RESULTS: Complete datasets were available for 1913 participants ventilated with high PEEP and recruitment manoeuvres, compared with 1924 participants who received low PEEP. The primary outcome occurred in 562/1913 (29.4%) participants randomised to high PEEP, compared with 620/1924 (32.2%) participants randomised to low PEEP (unadjusted odds ratio [OR]=0.87; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.75-1.01; P=0.06). Higher PEEP resulted in 87/1913 (4.5%) participants requiring interventions for desaturation, compared with 216/1924 (11.2%) participants randomised to low PEEP (OR=0.34; 95% CI, 0.26-0.45). Intraoperative hypotension was associated more frequently (784/1913 [41.0%]) with high PEEP, compared with low PEEP (579/1924 [30.1%]; OR=1.87; 95% CI, 1.60-2.17). CONCLUSIONS: High PEEP combined with recruitment manoeuvres during low tidal volume ventilation in patients undergoing major surgery did not reduce postoperative pulmonary complications. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03937375 (Clinicaltrials.gov).

Aims: This prospective observational study evaluates the utility of non-invasive cardiac monitoring in obese patients in the day-surgery case, considering factors, such as Body Mass Index (BMI) and anaesthesia technique. Background: Obese patients are more likely to be admitted to hospital or to get hospitalized because they are more prone to concomitant diseases and obesity itself is not a contraindication to day surgery. Obese patients are a high-risk patient population that may particularly benefit from monitoring perioperative haemodynamic variations. Methods: In this observational study, we compared haemodynamic variations between overweight or obese and normal weight patients undergoing day-case surgery. We adopted NICOM® as a non-invasive cardiac output monitoring. Objective: The aim of the current study was to investigate the haemodynamic impact of BMI and anaesthesia technique during day-case surgery procedures. The other goal was to evaluate the feasibility and applications of non-invasive cardiac output monitoring among the obese population in day-surgery. Results: 74 patients were included in the study. 34 were overweight or obese (weight 84 ± 10 kg, height 160 ± 10 cm, BMI ≈ 30 kg/m2), 40 were normal weight (weight 63 ± 15 kg, height 160 ± 10 cm, BMI ≈ 22 kg/m2). Compared to normal-weight patients, obese patients show an increase in blood pressure with a return to baseline values at the end of surgery (p < 0.05). The Cardiac Output (CO) shows a similar trend, whereas the heart rate is normal. A decrease in the Cardiac Index (CI) during the operation was noticed in both groups, the one in obese patients (p = 0.24) being greater. In the same way, the Stroke Volume Index (SVI) was lower in obese patients during surgery (p < 0.05). In spinal anaesthesia, the Total Peripheral Resistance Index (TPRI) was not statistically different between the groups of study. As for the TPRI in obese patients, we reported values similar to the ones in non-obese patients in spinal anaesthesia. In local anesthesia, TPRI was higher in obese patients than in non-obese. Conclusion: Cardiovascular alterations in relation to obesity include an increase in blood pressure, CO and SV. An inadequate monitoring of haemodynamic parameters is a risk factor for perioperative complications. NICOM® provides a continuous, non-invasive haemodynamic measurement.

Introduction Low back pain (LBP) is a common problem, and facet joint pain is responsible for 15–45% of cases. Treatment is multidisciplinary, and when conservative measures are not sufficient, radiofrequency (RF) is often used. It allows the interruption of nociceptive input, producing a heat lesion in a continuous or pulsed mode. Methods Medical records of 60 patients who underwent pulsed RF denervation were examined. The standard procedure provided follow-up of pain intensity. Numerical rating scale (NRS) and Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4) were recorded before treatment, and 15 and 40 days, and 6 months after treatment. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and patient satisfaction were also recorded. Successful treatment was defined as more than a 50% reduction in the NRS scores at 6 months compared with pretreatment scores. Results Scores on the NRS and DN4 were statistically different over time (p

Context Pain is commonly experienced among patients after surgical procedures. Clinical pain management after surgery is far from being successful. Patients may control postoperative pain by self-administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient-controlled analgesia or PCA). PCA devices have been developed including the sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS). A systematic review of the use of SSTS for postoperative pain is needed to identify an alternative method of pain management. Objectives To systematically review literature to establish the efficacy and the safety of PCA with SSTS used in the treatment of moderate-to-severe acute post-operative pain in a hospital setting. Methods Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Trials Register were systematically searched in December 2019 for studies examining SSTS for pain in adult after surgical procedures. The methodological quality of the studies and their results were appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and specific measurement properties criteria, respectively. Results Sixteen studies evaluating SSTS were included for a total of 2311 patients. All participants in the SSTS group reported NRS ≤ 4 within 24 h after surgery. Patient satisfaction was high, with a minimum of 70% satisfaction among patients treated with SSTS. The most common adverse events (AEs) overall for SSTS 15 and 30 mcg were nausea, vomiting, and headache. AEs observed in the studies were generally consistent with those associated with opioids and the postsurgical setting. Conclusions SSTS is an important system for the management of moderate-to-severe acute pain in a hospital setting. SSTS is well tolerated, with no unexpected adverse events (AEs) and no clinically meaningful vital sign changes. These data confirm the safety and tolerability of the SSTS. Successful pain management resulted in a high level of acceptance of the SSTS by patients with high satisfaction for the method of pain control.

BackgroundBreast surgery in the United States is common. Pain affects up to 50% of women undergoing breast surgery and can interfere with postoperative outcomes. General anesthesia is the conventional, most frequently used anaesthetic technique. Various locoregional anesthetic techniques are also used for breast surgeries. A systematic review of the use of locoregional anesthesia for postoperative pain in breast surgery is needed to clarify its role in pain management.ObjectivesTo systematically review literature to establish the efficacy and the safety of locoregional anesthesia used in the treatment of pain after breast surgery.MethodsEmbase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Trials Register were systematically searched in Mars 2020 for studies examining locoregional anesthesia for management of pain in adults after breast surgery. The methodological quality of the studies and their results were appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and specific measurement properties criteria, respectively.ResultsNineteen studies evaluating locoregional anesthesia were included: 1058 patients underwent lumpectomy/mastectomy, 142 breast augmentation and 79 breast reduction. Locoregional anesthesia provides effective anesthesia and analgesia in the perioperative setting, however no statistically significant difference emerged if compared to other techniques. For mastectomy only, the use of locoregional techniques reduces pain in the first hour after the end of the surgery if compared to other procedures (p = 0.02). Other potentially beneficial effects of locoregional anesthesia include decreased need for opioids, decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting, fewer complications and increased patient satisfaction. All this improves postoperative recovery and shortens hospitalization stay. In none of these cases, locoregional anesthesia was statistically superior to other techniques.ConclusionThe results of our review showed no differences between locoregional anesthesia and other techniques in the management of breast surgery. Locoregional techniques are superior in reducing pain in the first hour after mastectomy.

Background: Head and neck cancer affects approximately 382,000 new patients per year worldwide with a significant portion undergoing surgical treatment. During postoperative period key elements in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) are airway management and pain control. Objective: We evaluated the average change of inpatient pain control using a Numerical Rating Score (NRS). We also evaluated the time of extubation after ICU admission recording the incidence of desaturation and the necessity of re-intubation. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative complications, included those narcotics-related, and the use of rescue analgesics. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed data of registry before and after we have changed our postoperative analgesic protocol from remifentanil infusion to ketamine infusion. Results: Medical records of 20 patients were examined. 10 patients received 0.5 mg/kg ketamine bolus at the end of surgery, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.25 mg/kg/h. All patients presented a significant decrease in pain intensity from the 4th to 48th postoperative hour (p < 0.05), but statically not a significant difference in NRS score was recorded between the two groups. Time to extubation was shorter in ketamine group compared to the remifentanil group (112.30 min ± 16.78 vs. 78 min ± 14.17; p < 0.05). Desaturation rate was 10% in the remifentanil group, while no case was recorded in the ketamine group. Conclusion: The level of analgesia provided by ketamine and remifentanil was comparable. Ketamine was superior in ventilatory management of the patient with more rapid extubation and with no case of desaturation.