Search

Background: A fear of potential gas leak limits the wide spread use of minimal flow anesthesia with supraglottic airway devices. Second generation supraglottic airway devices have been claimed to be come with good airway seal. I-gel is one of these and it has been extensively evaluated for spontaneous as well as assisted ventilation. We conducted this study to evaluate its use with low flow anesthesia and volume controlled ventilation. Methodology: In a prospective randomized controlled trial, 50 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries for less than 2 h duration were administered general anesthesia, with controlled ventilation, using either endotracheal tube or an I-gel for airway control. The total fresh gas flow was gradually reduced until it was 400 mL/min. Patients were monitored for evidence of loss of respiratory gas volume in the breathing circuit and other parameters for ventilation failure. Results: Ventilation could be maintained at a fresh gas flow of 400 mL/min, without clinical or volumetric evidence of gas leak in all patients in the two groups. Two patients in the I-gel group had intraoperative gas leak leading to ventilator failure alarm but the same was corrected by repositioning of the head. The vital signs, peak airway pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide, set tidal volume and expired tidal volumes were statistically similar in the two groups. Conclusion: I-gel supraglottic airway can be safely and efficiently used for laparoscopic surgery using minimal flow anesthesia and volume controlled ventilation. Citation: Khan A, Kapoor MC, Garg S, Puri A, Sinha A. I-gel supraglottic airway use is efficient and safe during minimal flow anesthesia with volume controlled ventilation - a randomized controlled trial. Anaesth pain intensive care 2020;24(1):__ Abbreviations: Supraglottic airway device – SAD; Volume controlled ventilation – VCV; Pressure controlled ventilation – PCV; Endotracheal tube – ETT; Laryngeal Mask Airway - LMA DOI: https://doi.org/10.35975/apic.v24i1. Received – 11 June 2019; Reviewed – 20, 23 October 2019; Revised – 31 January 2020; Second Review – 2, 7 January 2020; Accepted – 02 February 2020

Ventilating obese patients under general anaesthesia can be quite challenging. In addition to altered lung mechanics, increased abdominal adiposity, surgical positioning, and creation of pneumoperitoneum adds complexity to the situation.

This chapter explores the physiology and pathophysiology of obesity and provides an overview of its medical management. In spite of recognizing the medical problems associated with obesity, it was 2013 when the American Medical Association acknowledged it as a disease; thereafter, medical societies began treating it as such. Understanding body weight regulation requires an understanding of energy balance. There are three main factors that affect and maintain energy balance and a steady body weight—the homoeostatic, environmental, and behavioural processes. Alterations in any of these may lead to weight changes. Although weight loss can usually be achieved through restriction of caloric intake and/or increased physical activity, most individuals have a tendency to regain the lost weight. A plausible hypothesis is that body weight is maintained at a particular set level, and deviations from this set point are resisted and minimized by a feedback control system. Diet, exercise, and behavioural modifications should be all parts of obesity management, with adjunctive pharmacotherapy as necessary. In patients with extreme obesity, however, bariatric surgery is the best alternative treatment.

Treating anemia in cancer patients in a perioperative setting remains challenging for the anesthesiologist. The prevalence of anemia in this population is common and multifactorial. Despite various etiologies (e.g., cancer-specific or treatment-specific), the presence of anemia remains an independent predictor of increased perioperative morbidity and mortality. The treatment options for anemic cancer patients in the perioperative period pose unique concerns. Intravenous iron is a newer treatment option, but large studies demonstrating its beneficial effect on long-term oncologic outcomes are lacking. Blood transfusion has been related to the risk of cancer recurrence. Cell salvage technology brings along concern for cancer metastases. Finally, as cancer patients are often immunocompromised, special consideration must be taken in the preparation of blood products administered (i.e., radiation and leukodepletion).

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is one minimally invasive management strategy for cancer that utilizes high dose radiation focused and targeted to lesion site leading to tumor cell destruction. It has emerged as a suitable safe, effective, and alternate option to surgery or conventional radiation therapy for small lesions. This modality has been used to biopsy brain lesions safely and has been labeled frame-based stereotactic biopsy (STX). Similarly, this technique is used for cancerous lesions of the other body parts and is termed stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). These procedures can be performed on an outpatient basis. Mortality and morbidity associated with these procedures are known to be very low and postoperative neurological deficits are rare.

‘Enhanced Recovery After Surgery’ (ERAS) protocols are an evidence-based, multidisciplinary system for patient care that— since its emergence in 2001— has shown remarkable efficacy in reducing surgical complications, shortening length of stay (LoS), and the incidence of hospital re-admission. Unfortunately, wide spread acceptance of ERAS has been slow, as it conflicts with some traditional perioperative care practices. However, with protocol compliance >70%, studies have shown significant reduction in mortality and postsurgical complications, with 30-50% reduction in LoS and approximately a 50% reduction in complications.

We aimed to evaluate comparative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer. We systematically searched electronic data sources with application of combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators, and limits. Perioperative clinical and short-term oncological outcomes were evaluated. Trial Sequential Analysis of the outcomes was conducted. Nine randomised-controlled trials reporting 1463 patients evaluating outcomes of robotic TME (n = 728) and laparoscopic TME (n = 735) were included. Although the robotic approach was associated with significantly longer operative time (MD 31.64, P = 0.002), it was associated with significantly longer DRM (MD 0.8, P = 0.004) and shorter time to soft diet (MD − 0.50, P = 0.03) compared to the laparoscopic approach. Moreover, there was no significant difference in intraoperative (RR 1.07, P = 0.76)) and postoperative (RR 0.97, P = 0.81) complications, anastomotic leak (RR 0.93, P = 0.69), conversion to open rate (RR 0.46, P = 0.05), blood loss (MD 19.65, P = 0.74), time to first flatus (MD − 0.30, P = 0.37), LARS (RR 0.83, P = 0.41), ileus (RR 0.72, P = 0.39), positive CRM (RR 0.82, P = 0.49), PRM (MD − 0.5, P = 0.55), number of harvested lymph nodes (MD 0.33, P = 0.58), or length of stay (MD − 0.60, P = 0.12) between two groups. The Trial Sequential Analysis demonstrated that the risk of type 1 and type 2 errors was minimal in most outcomes. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that robotic and laparoscopic TME may be comparable in terms of clinical and short-term oncological profile but the robotic approach may be associated with longer procedure time. Future high-quality randomised studies are encouraged to compare the functional, long-term oncological, and cost-effectiveness outcomes of both approaches.

Mucinous appendiceal neoplasms are rare and diagnosis is often difficult as patients present with non-specific symptoms often suggestive of appendicitis only and most diagnoses are made following post-surgery histology examination. Here we present a case of a mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma with areas of both Low-grade Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasm and High-grade Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasm, in a ruptured appendix at a district general hospital. Without early detection and treatment these pathologies can lead to pseudomyxoma peritonei, a syndrome of progressive mucinous ascites. This case highlights the limitations of radiological studies, benefits of diagnostic laparoscopy and provides a rationale for removing the mesoappendix with the appendix during routine appendectomies.

Background: Thoracic interfascial plane blocks and modification (PECS) have recently gained popularity for analgesic potential during breast surgery. We evaluate/consolidate the evidence on opioid-sparing effect of PECS blocks in comparison with conventional intravenous analgesia (IVA) and paravertebral block (PVB). Materials and Methods: Prospective, randomized controlled trials comparing PECS block to conventional IVA or PVB in patients undergoing breast surgery published till June 2017 were searched in the medical database. Comparisons were made for 24-h postoperative morphine consumption and intraoperative fentanyl-equivalent consumption. Results: Final analysis included nine trials (PECS vs. IVA 4 trials and PECS vs. PVB 5 trials). PECS block showed a decreased intraoperative fentanyl consumption over IVA by 49.20 mcg (95% confidence interval [CI] =42.67–55.74) (I2 = 98.47%, P < 0.001) and PVB by 15.88 mcg (95% CI = 12.95–18.81) (I2 = 95.51%, P < 0.001). Postoperative, 24-h morphine consumption with PECS block was lower than IVA by 7.66 mg (95% CI being 6.23–9.10) (I2 = 63.15, P < 0.001) but was higher than PVB group by 1.26 mg (95% CI being 0.91–1.62) (I2 = 99.53%, P < 0.001). Two cases of pneumothorax were reported with PVB, and no complication was reported in any other group. Conclusions: Use of PECS block and its modifications with general anesthesia for breast surgery has significant opioid-sparing effect intraoperatively and during the first 24 h after surgery. It also has higher intraoperative opioid-sparing effect when compared to PVB. During the 1st postoperative day, PVB has slightly more morphine sparing potential that may however be associated with higher complication rates. The present PECS block techniques show marked interstudy variations and need standardization.

Haloperidol is an antipsychotic with well-known antiemetic potential. It is underutilized for postoperative nausea vomiting due to reported corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation. This meta-analysis evaluates its safety and efficacy as an antiemetic in the perioperative period. Trials comparing haloperidol to 5-HT3 -receptor antagonists (5-HT3 -RA) for 24 postoperative vomiting incidences published up to May 2017 were searched in the medical database. Comparisons were made for antiemetic efficiency variables (vomiting incidence, rescue antiemetic need, and patients with complete response) during early (until 6 hours) and late postoperative phases. Eight randomized controlled double-blinded trials were included in the final analysis. Twenty-four-hour vomiting incidence was similar in groups (fixed effects, P = 0.52, I2 = 0%). Trial-sequential analysis confirmed noninferiority of haloperidol over 5-HT3 -RAs (α = 5%, β = 20%, δ = 10%), with "information size" being 859 (required > 812). Pooled results did not demonstrate superiority/inferiority of 5-HT3 -RAs over haloperidol in all other antiemetic efficacy variables (early and delayed). Negligible heterogeneity was found in all the comparisons made. Pooled Mantel Haenszel odds ratio for QTc prolongation was equivalent in both groups (fixed effects, P = 0.23, I2 = 0%). The mean dose of haloperidol used was 1.34 mg, and no trial reported extrapyramidal side effects. Trial-sequential analysis showed statistical equivalence (α = 5%, β = 20%, δ = 10%), with information size being 745 (required > 591). Publication bias was unlikely (Egger test, X-intercept = 2.07, P = 0.10). We conclude that haloperidol is equivalent to the well-established 5-HT3 -RAs in preventing vomiting during the first day after surgery. The incidence of QTc prolongation with haloperidol is statistically equivalent to 5-HT3 -RAs and thus should not be the factor that discourages its use for treatment/prophylaxis of postoperative nausea vomiting.

Background Opioid-sparing analgesia for bariatric surgery in morbidly obese can potentially prevent catastrophic airway complications. Our meta-analysis attempts to consolidate the evidence on dexmedetomidine evaluating its analgesic and safety profile. Methods Trails comparing perioperative dexmedetomidine infusion to conventional analgesic regimens for bariatric surgery were searched. Comparisons were made for 24-hour and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) morphine consumed, PACU pain scores, postoperative nausea and vomiting pain scores, and heartrate. Meta-regression was performed for length of stay to evaluate various analgesic control subgroups. Results Six trials were included in the final analysis. Dexmedetomidine infusion (reported in 5 intraoperative subgroups and 2 postoperative subgroups) decreased 24-hour morphine by 18.13±6.11 mg (random effects: P 2 = 95.48%). Despite the small number of included studies, the sample size for avoiding a false positive result was adequate as the trial sequential analysis found the present sample size (362) to be well past the required "sample size" (n = 312) for 85% power. Meta-regression for infusion dose on morphine consumption difference found a predictability of 49% (coefficient = 39.93, random-effects, Tau 2 = 396.08), and predictability of the model improved to 68% on inclusion of time of initiation of infusion. The dexmedetomidine group had lower PACU morphine consumption (by 6.91±1.19, I 2 = 34.37%), lower pain scores (scale of 0–10±2.27, I 2 = 88.14%), lower postoperative nausea and vomiting incidence (odds ratio=±0.26, I 2 = 0%), and lower heart rate (73.25 versus. 83.50) (mean difference=±10.15 I 2 = 94.04%). No adverse events were reported across trials. Conclusion Perioperative dexmedetomidine infusion in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery is a promising and safe alternative. Both intraoperative or postoperative infusions lead to significant opioid sparing in early and extend postoperative recovery phase. Morbidly obese patients receiving perioperative dexmedetomidine infusions have overall better pain control and lower incidence of postoperative nausea-vomiting. All the aforementioned merits come with a stable hemodynamic profile and without any reported major adverse events.

Resumo Os erros de medicacao sao as causas mais comuns de morbidade e mortalidade dos pacientes. Alem disso, esses erros aumentam os encargos financeiros da instituicao. Embora o impacto varie de nenhum dano a efeitos adversos graves, inclusive o obito, e preciso estar atento a ordem de prioridades porque os erros de medicacao sao evitaveis. Na atualidade, com as pessoas cientes e os processos medicos em evidencia, frear esse problema e de extrema prioridade. O esforco individual para diminuir os erros de medicacao pode nao obter sucesso ate que uma mudanca nos protocolos e sistemas existentes seja incorporada. Muitas vezes, os erros de medicacao ocorridos nao podem ser revertidos. A melhor maneira de “tratar” esses erros e impedi‐los. Os erros de medicacao (devido a troca de seringa), de overdose (devido a mal‐entendido ou preconcepcao da dose, mal uso de bomba e erro de diluicao), de via de administracao incorreta, de subdosagem e de omissao sao causas comuns de erro de medicacao que ocorrem no periodo perioperatorio. A omissao e erros no calculo de medicamentos ocorrem comumente em UTI. Os erros de medicacao podem ocorrer no periodo perioperatorio, tanto durante a preparacao e administracao quanto na manutencao de registros. Um grande numero de erros humanos e do sistema pode ser responsabilizado pela ocorrencia de erros de medicacao. A necessidade do momento e parar o jogo da culpa, aceitar os erros e desenvolver uma cultura segura e “justa” para evitar os erros de medicacao. Os sistemas recem‐criados, como o Veinrom, um sistema de administracao de liquidos, e uma nova abordagem na prevencao de erros de medicacao devido aos medicamentos mais comumente usados em anestesia. Desenvolvimentos semelhantes, juntamente com medicos vigilantes, uma cultura de local de trabalho seguro e apoio organizacional, todos em conjunto podem ajudar a evitar esses erros.

Background/Aims: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAPP) administered propofol sedation in patients undergoing non-advanced gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. Materials and Methods: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving non-advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 608 publications, 25 [colonoscopy (9), upper GI endoscopy (5), and combined procedures (11)] were identified to meet inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Data was analyzed for hypoxia rates, airway intervention rates, and airway complication rates. Results: A total of 137,087 patients were involved. A total of 2931 hypoxia episodes (defined as an oxygen saturation below 90%) were reported with a pooled hypoxia rate of 0.014 (95% CI being 0.008-0.023). Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates and pooled airway complication rates were 0.002 (95% CI being 0.006–0.001) and 0.001 (95% CI being 0.000–0.001), respectively. Conclusions: The rates of adverse events in patients undergoing non-advanced GI endoscopic procedures with NAPP sedation are extremely small. Similar data for anesthesia providers is not available. It is prudent for anesthesia providers to demonstrate their superiority in prospective randomized controlled trials, if they like to retain exclusive ownership over propofol sedation in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

Paraesophageal hernia repairs are complex surgical cases frequently performed on patients of advanced age with multiple comorbidities, both of which create difficulties in the anesthetic management. Preoperative evaluation is challenging because of overlapping cardiopulmonary symptoms. The patient's symptoms and anatomy lead to an increased aspiration risk and the potential need for a rapid sequence induction. Depending on the surgical approach, lung isolation may be required. Communication with the surgeon is vital throughout the case, especially when placing gastric tube and bougies. Multimodal analgesia should include regional and/or neuraxial techniques, in addition to the standard intravenous and oral pain medications.

Day-care surgery, also known as outpatient or ambulatory surgery, is described as a planned operation or procedure carried out in an office or outpatient setting, where the patient is admitted, operated upon and discharged on the same calendar day and not admitted to the hospital as an inpatient (according to the International Association of Ambulatory Surgery). The rates of these surgeries are accelerating throughout the world, with 65% of all surgeries being done on an outpatient basis in the U.S. The patient, hospital and insurance companies are at an advantage with day-care surgeries because the outcomes include both an excellent safety record and improved quality of care that is cost-effective.

The care for Same-Day Surgery (SDS) patients has become increasingly important for the twenty-first-century physician, especially anaesthesiologists and surgeons. With the advent of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the USA, physicians are being forced to adapt to a value-based care model that is putting emphasis on efficient, quality care. In parallel, hospitals are seeing a steady increase in outpatient surgeries. The American Hospital Association reports that outpatient surgeries in community hospitals own an approximate 60% share of the total surgical volume, up from 54% in 1992. Clearly, the need for Anaesthesiologists who can appropriately handle the SDS patient is essential.

Application of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) to the bariatric surgical procedures is at its early stages with little consolidated evidence. This meta-analysis evaluates present literature and indicates pathways for development of evidence-based standardized ERAS protocols for bariatric surgery. Comparative trials between ERAS and conventional bariatric surgery published till June 2016 were searched in the medical database. Comparisons were made for length of stay (LOS), readmission, complications (major/minor), and reoperation rates. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) for the strength of meta-analysis was performed for the primary outcome LOS. Five subgroups with a total of 394 and 471 patients in ERAS and conventional group respectively were included. LOS was shorter in ERAS group by 1.56 ± 0.18 days (random-effects, p

Introduction Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with proposed higher efficacy and sustained action for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Methods Randomized controlled trials involving adult population undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia comparing palonosetron to placebo, ramosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron were included. Data were extracted for vomiting incidence (VI), complete response (no nausea/vomiting; Complete Response [CR]), and rescue antiemetic need. This was categorized as early phase (24 hours postoperative for ramosetron and 6 hours for rest) and delayed phase (48 hours for ramosetron and 24 hours for rest). VI and CR were used as markers of drug efficacy. Any adverse effects were evaluated. Results Twenty-two trials (4 with 3 groups) were included (comparing palonosetron to placebo in 5, ramosetron in 5, granisetron in 4, and ondansetron in 12 subgroups). Palonosetron demonstrated statistical superiority over placebo for VI and CR, both early/delayed PONV prevention. For delayed phase, palonosetron surpassed ramosetron in all 3 variables; however, none of the variables attained statistical significance during early phase. In early phase, palonosetron had better VI and CR than did granisetron; however, variables other than CR (better for palonosetron) failed to achieve statistical significance for delayed phase. All 3 outcomes were significantly better for palonosetron compared with ondansetron in delayed phase, but statistical superiority could only be demonstrated for VI in early phase. Being inconsistently documented across trials, nausea scores could not be evaluated. Conclusion Palonosetron is as safe as and more effective than placebo, ramosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron in preventing delayed PONV. For early PONV, it has higher efficacy over placebo, granisetron, and ondansetron.

Prophylactic continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) can prevent pulmonary adverse events following upper abdominal surgeries. The present meta-regression evaluates and quantifies the effect of degree/duration of (CPAP) on the incidence of postoperative pulmonary events. Medical databases were searched for randomized controlled trials involving adult patients, comparing the outcome in those receiving prophylactic postoperative CPAP versus no CPAP, undergoing high-risk abdominal surgeries. Our meta-analysis evaluated the relationship between the postoperative pulmonary complications and the use of CPAP. Furthermore, meta-regression was used to quantify the effect of cumulative duration and degree of CPAP on the measured outcomes. Seventy-three potentially relevant studies were identified, of which 11 had appropriate data, allowing us to compare a total of 362 and 363 patients in CPAP and control groups, respectively. Qualitatively, Odds ratio for CPAP showed protective effect for pneumonia [0.39 (0.19–0.78)], atelectasis [0.51 (0.32–0.80)] and pulmonary complications [0.37 (0.24–0.56)] with zero heterogeneity. For prevention of pulmonary complications, odds ratio was better for continuous than intermittent CPAP. Meta-regression demonstrated a positive correlation between the degree of CPAP and the incidence of pneumonia with a regression coefficient of +0.61 (95 % CI 0.02–1.21, P = 0.048, τ 2 = 0.078, r 2 = 7.87 %). Overall, adverse effects were similar with or without the use of CPAP. Prophylactic postoperative use of continuous CPAP significantly reduces the incidence of postoperative pneumonia, atelectasis and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing high-risk abdominal surgeries. Quantitatively, increasing the CPAP levels does not necessarily enhance the protective effect against pneumonia. Instead, protective effect diminishes with increasing degree of CPAP.

Dexamethasone has many desirable pharmacologic properties for perioperative use. Its antiemetic potential has been a focus of many recent trials. Trials comparing dexamethasone to 5-HT3-receptor antagonists (5HT3-RA) for 24 h postoperative vomiting incidences published till August 2017 were searched in the medical database. Comparisons for antiemetic efficiency variables (vomiting incidence, nausea incidence, rescue antiemetic need, and patients with complete response) during early (until 6 h) and late postoperative phase were made. Comparative analgesic requirements were also evaluated. Twenty randomized controlled double-blinded trials were included in the final analysis. Twenty-four-hour vomiting incidence was similar (Fixed-effects, P = 0.86, I2 = 2.94%). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) confirmed non-inferiority of dexamethasone for 24-h vomiting incidence. (α = 5%, β = 20%, δ = 10%) with “information size” being 1619 (required > 573). Equivalence was also verified from early and delayed nausea rate as well using TSA. Pooled results did not demonstrate superiority/inferiority of 5-HT3-RAs over dexamethasone in all other antiemetic efficacy variables (early and delayed). Heterogeneity was found to be low in all of the comparisons. Linear-positive dose-response curve for dexamethasone 24-h vomiting and nausea incidence was seen (correlation coefficient being 0.21 and 0.28, respectively). Dexamethasone reduced the analgesic need (MH-odds of 0.64 (95% CI being 0.44 to 0.93) P = 0.02, I2 = 0)). Possibility of publication bias could not be ruled out (Egger’s test, X-intercept = 1.41, P = 0.04). Dexamethasone demonstrates equal antiemetic efficacy compared to 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. The agents perform equally well both in early postoperative phase and up to 24 h after surgery. Use of dexamethasone replacing 5-HT3 RAs offers an additional advantage of lowering the opioid requirements during the perioperative period.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an important clinical problem. Aprepitant is a relatively new agent for this condition which may be superior to other treatment. A systematic review was performed after searching a number of medical databases for controlled trials comparing aprepitant with conventional antiemetics published up to 25 April 2015 using the following keywords: ‘Aprepitant for PONV’, ‘Aprepitant versus 5-HT3 antagonists’ and ‘NK-1 versus 5-HT3 for PONV’. The primary outcome for the pooled analysis was efficacy of aprepitant in preventing vomiting on postoperative day (POD) 1 and 2. 172 potentially relevant papers were identified of which 23 had suitable data. For the primary outcome, 14 papers had relevant data. On POD1, 227/2341 patients (9.7%) patients randomised to aprepitant had a vomiting episode compared with 496/2267 (21.9%) controls. On POD2, the rate of vomiting among patients receiving aprepitant was 6.8% compared with 12.8% for controls. The OR for vomiting compared with controls was 0.48 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.67) on POD1 and 0.54 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.72) on POD2. Aprepitant also demonstrated a better profile with a lower need for rescue antiemetic and a higher complete response. Efficacy for vomiting prevention was demonstrated for 40 mg, 80 mg and 125 mg without major adverse effects. For vomiting comparison there was significant unexplainable heterogeneity (67.9% and 71.5% for POD1 and POD2, respectively). We conclude that (1) aprepitant reduces the incidence of vomiting on both POD1 and POD2, but there is an unexplained heterogeneity which lowers the strength of the evidence; (2) complete freedom from PONV on POD1 is highest for aprepitant with minimum need for rescue; and (3) oral aprepitant (80 mg) provides an effective and safe sustained antivomiting effect.

Present guidelines recommend bariatric surgery at BMI ≥40 kg/m2 or BMI ≥35 kg/m2 with obesity-related morbidity. Evidence for cost and mortality/morbidity risk of bariatric surgery and obesity-related diseases was evaluated determining equivalency point of absolute incremental mortality risk by BMI and risks associated with bariatric surgery. A stochastic model was developed evaluating costs related to surgical procedure at a given BMI. Bariatric surgery produces significant lifetime cost savings associated with diabetes, gallstones, hypertension, high cholesterol, colon cancer, heart disease, and stroke in men at BMI 30 kg/m2 for laparoscopic gastric bypass. For women, laparoscopic gastric bypass saves cost at BMI 32 kg/m2 and laparoscopic gastric banding at BMI 37 kg/m2. In white men, relative to single-year mortality risks by BMI, surgical intervention becomes risk-beneficial at BMI 25 kg/m2 for laparoscopic gastric banding, BMI 27 kg/m2 for laparoscopic gastric bypass procedure and open gastric banding, and BMI 37 kg/m2 for open gastric bypass. Risk benefit for African-American men by procedure occurs at BMI

Over the last four decades, as the rates of obesity have increased, so have the challenges associated with its anesthetic management. In the present review, we discuss perioperative anesthesia management issues that are modifiable by the early involvement of the surgical team. We sum up available evidence or expert opinion on issues like patient positioning, postoperative analgesia, and the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) ventilation on surgical anastomosis. We also address established predictors of higher perioperative risk and suggest possible management strategies and concerns of obese patients undergoing same day procedures. Finally, a generalized pharmacological model relevant to altered pharmacokinetics in these patients is presented.

Early and clear recovery from anesthesia is the crux for preventing perioperative complications in the obese undergoing bariatric surgery. Volatile inhalation agents by virtue of high lipid solubility are expected to produce residual anesthetic effects. Prospective randomized trials comparing desflurane and sevoflurane used for anesthesia maintenance (electroencephalograph guided) during bariatric surgery published till 1st of July 2017 were searched in the medical database. Comparisons were made for surrogate markers of recovery from anesthesia that included time to eye-opening (TEo), time to tracheal-extubation (TEx), and Aldrete scores on immediately shifting to recovery (Ald-I). Five trials were included in the final analysis. Patients receiving desflurane began to respond faster by opening eyes on command (five trials) by 3.80 min (95%CI being 1.83–5.76) (random effects, P

Background: The frequency of metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is increasing worldwide, with over 500,000 cases performed every year. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is present in 35%-94% of MBS patients. Nevertheless, consensus regarding the perioperative management of OSA in MBS patients is not established. Objectives: To provide consensus based guidelines utilizing current literature and, when in the absence of supporting clinical data, expert opinion by organizing a consensus meeting of experts from relevant specialties. Setting: The meeting was held in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Methods: A panel of 15 international experts identified 75 questions covering preoperative screening, treatment, postoperative monitoring, anesthetic care and follow-up. Six researchers reviewed the literature systematically. During this meeting, the "Amsterdam Delphi Method" was utilized including controlled acquisition of feedback, aggregation of responses and iteration. Results: Recommendations or statements were provided for 58 questions. In the judgment of the experts, 17 questions provided no additional useful information and it was agreed to exclude them. With the exception of 3 recommendations (64%, 66%, and 66% respectively), consensus (>70%) was reached for 55 statements and recommendations. Several highlights: polysonmography is the gold standard for diagnosing OSA; continuous positive airway pressure is recommended for all patients with moderate and severe OSA; OSA patients should be continuously monitored with pulse oximetry in the early postoperative period; perioperative usage of sedatives and opioids should be minimized. Conclusion: This first international expert meeting provided 58 statements and recommendations for a clinical consensus guideline regarding the perioperative management of OSA patients undergoing MBS. (C) 2017 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. All rights reserved.

Background: Providing anesthesia for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures in morbidly obese patients is a challenge for a variety of reasons. The negative impact of obesity on the respiratory system combined with a need to share the upper airway and necessity to preserve the spontaneous ventilation, together add to difficulties. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with a body mass index (BMI) >40 kg/m 2 that underwent out-patient GI endoscopy between September 2010 and February 2011. Patient data was analyzed for procedure, airway management technique as well as hypoxemic and cardiovascular events. Results: A total of 119 patients met the inclusion criteria. Our innovative airway management technique resulted in a lower rate of intraoperative hypoxemic events compared with any published data available. Frequency of desaturation episodes showed statistically significant relation to previous history of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). These desaturation episodes were found to be statistically independent of increasing BMI of patients. Conclusion: Pre-operative history of OSA irrespective of associated BMI values can be potentially used as a predictor of intra-procedural desaturation. With suitable modification of anesthesia technique, it is possible to reduce the incidence of adverse respiratory events in morbidly obese patients undergoing GI endoscopy procedures, thereby avoiding the need for endotracheal intubation.

Neurosurgery in awake patients incorporates newer technologies that require the anesthesiologists to update their skills and evolve their methodologies. They need effective communication skills and knowledge of selecting the right anesthetic drugs to ensure adequate analgesia, akinesia, along with patient satisfaction with the anesthetic conduct throughout the procedure. The challenge of providing adequate anesthetic care to an awake patient for intracranial surgery requires more than routine vigilance about anesthetic management.

Background: Intraoperative administration of opiates for postoperative analgesia requires a dosing strategy without clear indicators of pain in an anesthetized patient. Preoperative patient characteristics such as body mass index (BMI), gender, age, and other patient characteristics may provide important information regarding opiate requirements. This study intends to determine if there is an association between gender or BMI and the immediate postoperative pain scores after undergoing an open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of an ankle fracture with general anesthesia and morphine only analgesia. Materials and Methods: Using a retrospective cohort design, the perioperative records were reviewed at a university healthcare hospital.One hundred and thirty-seven cases met all inclusion and no exclusion criteria. Postanesthesia care unit (PACU) records were reviewed for pain scores at first report and 30 min later as well as PACU opiate requirements. T-test, chi-square, and Mann-Whitney tests compared univariate data and multivariate analysis was performed by linear regression. Results: There were no statistically significant PACU pain score group differences based on gender or BMI. Post hoc analysis revealed that in the setting of similar pain scores, obese patients received a similar weight based intraoperative morphine dose when using adjusted body weight (ABW) compared to nonobese subjects. A further finding revealed a negative correlation between age and pain score (P = 0.001). Conclusion: This study did not find an association between obesity or gender and postoperative pain when receiving morphine only preemptive analgesia. This study does support the use of ABW as a means to calculate morphine dosing for obese patients and that age is associated with lower immediate pain scores.

Summary In order to reach and maintain a normal physiological performance, each cell of the human body needs an adequate quantity of oxygen. The measurement of oxygen at the cellular level is a significant early marker of local injury. Unlike global markers of oxygen deficit that often detect on-going pathology in the irreversible phase, tissue oxygenation measurement can provide an early therapeutic window for appropriate timely intervention to prevent and revert the damage. The present review describes the physiological principles guiding tissue oxygen levels in the morbidly obese. We describe how the morbidly obese are different from lean patients in terms of oxygen delivery at various tissue levels. The text highlights how pathological alterations in tissue oxygen levels during special situations like trauma, sepsis, and active bleeding can be predicted, interpreted and therapeutically targeted to improve clinical outcomes in morbidly obese patients. The utility of tissue oxygenation monitoring in relevance to morbidly obese patients during the perioperative period along with the possible clinical implications is also discussed. We present the present evidence on the topic and extrapolate the possible future role of this monitoring for various diseased states in morbidly obese patients.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a major cause of patient dissatisfaction towards surgery. For bariatric surgery, increased vomiting/retching is detrimental to surgical anastomosis. The present study evaluated the efficacy of aprepitant (neurokinin-1 inhibitor) as a prophylactic antiemetic in morbidly obese patients for laparoscopic bariatric surgery. After institutional review board approval, 125 morbidly obese patients were recruited into this double-blind placebo-controlled trial. On random division, the patients received a tablet of aprepitant (80 mg) in group A, or a similar-appearing placebo in group P, an hour prior to surgery. All patients received intravenous ondansetron (4 mg) intraoperatively. Postoperatively, the patients were evaluated for nausea and vomiting by a blinded evaluator at 30 min, 1, 2, 6, 24, 48, and 72 h. Both groups were evenly distributed for age, body mass index, type, and length of surgery. Cumulative incidence of vomiting at 72 h was significantly lower in group A (3 %) compared to group P (15 %; p = 0.021). Odds ratio for vomiting in group P compared to group A was 5.47 times. On Kaplan–Meier plot, time to first vomiting was also significantly delayed in group A (p = 0.019). A higher number of patients showed complete absence of nausea or vomiting in group A compared to group P (42.18 vs. 36.67 %). On the other hand, nausea scores were unaffected by aprepitant, and no significant difference between groups was found at any of the measured time points. In morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery, addition of aprepitant to ondansetron can significantly delay vomiting episodes simultaneously lowering the incidence of postoperative vomiting.

The present study evaluates the effect of anesthesiologist's experience in providing deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) on cost and safety. Methodology. Perioperative records of 1167 patients who underwent ERCP were divided on the basis of anesthesiologist assisting these procedures either on regular basis (Group R) or on ad hoc basis (Group N). Comparisons were made for anesthesia times, complication rates, and airway interventions. Results. Across all American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Classes, regular anesthesiologists were more efficient (overall mean anesthesia time in Group R was 24.82 ± 12.96 versus 48.63 ± 21.53 minutes in Group N). Within Group R, anesthesia times across all ASA classes were comparable. In Group N, anesthesia times for higher ASA status patients were significantly longer (ASA IV, 64.62 ± 35.78 versus ASA I, 45.88 ± 11.19 minutes). Intubation rates (0.76% versus 12.8%) and median minimal oxygen saturation (100% versus 97.01%) were significantly higher in Group R. Had Group R anesthesiologists performed all procedures, the hospital could have saved US $ 758536 (based upon operating room time costs). Conclusion. Experience in providing deep sedation improved patient safety and decreased the operating room turnaround time, thereby lowering operating room costs associated with these procedures.