Search

Although extracorporeal membrane ventilation offers the possibility for low-frequency ventilation, protocols commonly used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) vary largely. Whether strict adherence to low-frequency ventilation offers benefit on important outcome measures is poorly understood. Background/Objectives: This pilot clinical study investigated the efficacy of low-frequency ventilation on ventilator-free days (VFDs) in patients suffering from ARDS who were treated with ECMO therapy. Methods: In this single-center randomized controlled trial, 44 (70% male) successive ARDS patients treated with ECMO (aged 56 ± 12 years, SAPS III 64 (SD ± 14)) were randomly assigned 1:1 to the control group (conventional ventilation) or the treatment group (low-frequency ventilation during first 72 h on ECMO: respiratory rate 4–5/min; PEEP 14–16 cm H2O; plateau pressure 23–25 cm H2O, tidal volume: <4 mL/kg). The primary endpoint was VFDs at day 28 after starting ECMO treatment. The major secondary endpoint was ICU mortality, 28-day mortality and 90-day mortality. Results: Twenty-three (52%) patients were successfully weaned from ECMO and were discharged from the intensive care unit (ICU). Twelve patients in the treatment group and five patients in the control group showed more than one VFD at day 28 of ECMO treatment. VFDs were 3.0 (SD ± 5.5) days in the control group and 5.4 (SD ± 6) days in the treatment group (p = 0.117). Until day 28 of ECMO initiation, patients in the treatment group could be successfully weaned off of the ventilator more often (OR of 0.164 of 0 VFDs at day 28 after ECMO start; 95% CI 0.036–0.758; p = 0.021). ICU mortality did not differ significantly (36% in treatment group and 59% in control group; p = 0.227). Conclusions: Low-frequency ventilation is comparable to conventional protective ventilation in patients with ARDS who have been treated with ECMO. However, low-frequency ventilation may support weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation in patients suffering from ARDS and treated with ECMO therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study objective: To identify sex differences associated with caudal epidurals, the most commonly used technique of pediatric regional anesthesia, based on individually validated data of ultrasound-guided blocks performed between 04/2014 and 12/2020. Methods: Prospectively collected and individually validated data of a cohort of children aged between 0–15 years was analyzed in a retrospective observational study. We included pediatric surgeries involving a primary plan of caudal epidural anesthesia under sedation (without airway instrumentation) and a contingency plan of general anesthesia. Sex-specific rates were analyzed for overall failure of the primary anesthesia plan, for residual pain, for block-related technical complications and for critical respiratory events. We used Fisher´s exact tests and multivariable logistic regressions were used to evaluate sex-specific associations. Results: Data from 487 girls and 2060 boys ≤15 years old (ASA status 1 to 4) were analyzed. The primary-anesthesia-plan failure rate was 5.5% (95%CI 3.8%-7.8%) (N = 27/487) among girls and 4.7% (95%CI 3.9%-5.7%) (N = 97/2060) among boys (p = 0.41). Residual pain was the main cause of failure, with rates of 4.5% (95%CI 2.9–6.6%) (N = 22/487) among girls and 3.0% (95%CI 2.3–3.8%) (N = 61/2060) among boys (p = 0.089). Block-related technical complications were seen at rates of 0.8% (95%CI 0.3%-1.9%) (N = 4/487) among girls vs 2.5% (95%CI 0.5–2.7%) (N = 51/2060) among boys and, hence, significantly more often among male patients (p = 0.023). Male sex was significantly associated with higher odds (adjusted OR: 3.18; 95% CI: 1.12–9; p = 0.029) for such technical complications regardless of age, ASA status, gestational week at birth or puncture attempts. Critical respiratory events occurred at a 1.7% (95%CI 1.2%-2.3%) rate (N = 35/2060) twice as high among boys as 0.8% (95%CI 0.3%-1.9%) (N = 4/487) among girls (p = 0.21). Conclusions: While the the primary-anesthesia-plan failure rate was equal for girls and boys, technical complications and respiratory events are more likely to occur in boys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Radial head arthroplasty is recognized as the gold standard in the treatment of patients with unreconstructable radial head fractures., Objective: The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the long-term results after prosthetic replacement of the radial head and in a subgroup analysis to identify factors which influence the outcome., Material and Methods: A total of 48 patients with unreconstructable fractures of the radial head and neck were treated by cementless radial head arthroplasty between 05/2008 and 10/2018 (30 bipolar prosthesis type rHead Recon, 18 monopolar prosthesis type MoPyc). After a mean follow-up of 4.6 years 39 patients were assessed clinically and radiologically., Results: The median MEP score was 95 points. Compared to the uninjured side the median range of motion was reduced by 10° for extension/flexion as well as for pronation/supination. In 36 of 39 cases an osseous integration of the prosthesis could be documented. One prosthesis had to be removed after 23 months because of painful loosening. Overlengthening was present in 11 cases (28%), 25 patients (64%) had subcollar bone resorption with a stable osteointegrated stem. Nonbridging heterotopic ossification was observed in 15 patients (38%), 16 patients (41%) showed posttraumatic arthrosis. Patients with sustained elbow dislocation had a significantly worse function in the MEP score and tended to develop an arthrosis more frequently. Ulnohumeral joint degeneration was significantly increased when overlengthening was present., Conclusion: Radial head arthroplasty is an effective treatment option for unreconstructable fractures of the radial head and can provide good to excellent mid-term to long-term results. Sustained elbow dislocation as well as overlengthening of the prosthesis had a negative impact on the clinical outcome., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)