The effect of deep versus awake removal of the laryngeal mask airway on the incidence of emergence delirium in paediatric tonsillectomy: A randomised controlled trial.

Emergence delirium, characterised by inconsolable crying, perceptual disturbances and thrashing, occurs in young children during the recovery phase from general anaesthesia. Our aim was to determine whether timing of laryngeal mask airway removal (deeply anaesthetised versus awake) influenced the incidence of emergence delirium in children after tonsillectomy. A single-centre, randomised controlled trial was conducted at Albury Wodonga Health, a regional hospital in Australia. Included patients were two to seven years old, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification 1-2, undergoing elective tonsillectomy (with or without adenoidectomy or grommet insertion) under general anaesthesia. Patients were randomised to have their laryngeal mask removed whilst deeply anaesthetised (in the operating theatre) or after awakening (in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU)). Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium score was determined at 5 and 20 min after eye opening, and frequency of complications (cough, vomiting, excessive salivation, oxygen desaturation and laryngospasm) in the PACU were recorded. Sixty-two patients were randomised to deep laryngeal mask removal and 62 to awake. In the awake versus deep groups, 33 (53%) versus 40 (65%) participants had emergence delirium at 5 min (odds ratio (OR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 1.29, P = 0.20). At 20 min, 18 (29%) vs. 19 (31%) participants had emergence delirium (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.00, P = 0.88). A greater incidence of most PACU complications was observed in the awake versus deep group; cough (24% vs. 8%), vomiting (8% vs. 0%), excessive salivation (23% vs. 8%) and oxygen desaturation (16% vs. 0%). We found no significant difference between the two techniques in terms of preventing emergence delirium. However, other PACU complications were more frequent with awake removal.

Predictors of opioid use for rib fractures in a regional Australian hospital.

BACKGROUND: Rib fractures (RFs) are the leading type of single serious injury in New South Wales trauma patients. Uncontrolled pain drives the sequelae of atelectasis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and death in severe cases. Opioids are the mainstay of management; however, they carry numerous adverse effects. Understanding patient or injury factors which predict opioid requirement is important to tailor management. Existing evidence is limited to metropolitan trauma centres (MTCs). METHODS: We conducted an observational, retrospective, single-centre cohort study of all admissions to Albury Wodonga Health diagnosed with one or more RFs and discharged between January 1st, 2017, and December 31st, 2022, inclusive. Data collected included demographics, injury characteristics, and management, including analgesia. LASSO regression was performed to determine predictors of average daily opioid use for the first five days of admission in oral morphine equivalents (mg). R2 and root mean square error (RMSE) were calculated to assess model performance. RESULTS: We included 624 patients. LASSO selected number of RFs, fracture displacement score, pulmonary contusion, new injury severity score, age, chest tube use, chronic pain history, opioid history and upper or middle lateral RF location categories as predictors. Sex, middle anterior, middle posterior, and lower RF location categories were excluded by LASSO. The out of sample R2 was 28.6 %. On the scale of log OME, the RMSE was 1.08. CONCLUSION: The model is effective at identifying predictors of opioid use in this regional centre, which are similar to those described in evidence from MTCs. However, the low R2 with wide prediction intervals limits its utility on an individual level.

Intraoperative methadone for day-case gynaecological laparoscopy: A double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

Optimal pain relief in day-case surgery is imperative to patient comfort and timely discharge from hospital. Short-acting opioids are commonly used for analgesia in modern anaesthesia, allowing rapid recovery after surgery. Plasma concentration fluctuations from repeated dosing of short-acting opioids can cause patients to oscillate between analgesia with potential adverse effects, and inadequate analgesia requiring rescue dosing. Methadone's unique pharmacology may offer effective and sustained analgesia with less opioid consumption, potentially reducing adverse effects. Using a double-blind, randomised controlled trial, we compared post-anaesthesia care unit opioid consumption between day-case gynaecological laparoscopy patients who received either intravenous methadone (10 mg), or short-acting opioids intraoperatively. The primary outcome was post-anaesthesia care unit opioid consumption in oral morphine equivalents. Secondary outcomes included total opioid consumption, discharge opioid consumption, pain scores (0-10) until discharge, adverse effects (respiratory depression, postoperative nausea and vomiting, excess sedation), and rate of admission. Seventy patients were randomly assigned. Patients who received methadone consumed on average 9.44 mg fewer oral morphine equivalents in the post-anaesthesia care unit than the short-acting group (18.02 mg vs 27.46 mg, respectively, 95% confidence interval 0.003 to 18.88, P = 0.050) and experienced lower postoperative pain scores at every time point, although absolute differences were small. There was no evidence of lower hospital or discharge opioid consumption. No significant differences between the methadone and short-acting groups in other outcomes were identified: respiratory depression 41.2% versus 31.4%, Padjusted >0.99; postoperative nausea and vomiting 29.4% versus 42.9%, Padjusted >0.99; overnight admission 17.7% versus 11.4%, Padjusted >0.99; excess sedation 8.82% versus 8.57%, Padjusted >0.99. This study provides evidence that, although modestly, methadone can reduce post-anaesthesia care unit opioid consumption and postoperative pain scores after day-case gynaecological laparoscopy. There were no significant differences in any secondary outcomes.