A double-blinded randomised controlled study of fluid restriction versus liberal fluid during induction of labour: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Excess intravenous fluid for women requiring an induction of labour may adversely affect the duration of labour and maternal/neonatal outcomes. AIMS: This study aimed to determine the difference in duration of labour and outcomes with a low background infusion rate, compared to liberal background intravenous fluid management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double blind randomised controlled pilot study was performed on 200 women who underwent induction of labour at a single institution. Women were randomised to an intravenous rate of 40 mL/h versus 250 mL/h of Hartmann's solution. Fluid boluses were strictly controlled to limit bias. This trial was registered with the Australian clinical trial registry: ACTRN12621001298808. RESULTS: Analysis of the total amount of fluid received showed good separation with Group 1 (40 mL/h) receiving 1,736 mL less than Group 2 (250 mL/h), median (interquartile range) 841 mL (458, 1691) versus 2,577 mL (1620, 4326) (P < 0.001). Median duration of labour was shorter in Group 1 by 24 min (P = ns). Subset analysis of nulliparous women showed that duration of labour was shorter in Group 1 by 83.5 min (P = ns). CONCLUSION: As this was a pilot study, a significant difference in duration of labour or secondary outcomes was not seen. Given the increasing numbers of nulliparous women having an induction of labour, potential for adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes and the associated higher rate of operative birth, this study guides power calculations and supports proof of concept for future research into optimum fluid management during induction of labour for these women.

How we can reduce the environmental impact of our operating theatres: a narrative review.

Climate change is projected to become the leading cause of adverse health outcomes globally, and the healthcare system is a key contributor. Surgical theatres are three to six times more pollutant than other hospital areas, and produce anywhere from a fifth to a third of total hospital waste. Hospitals are increasingly expected to make operating theatres more sustainable, however guidelines to improve environmental sustainability are lacking, and previous research takes a narrow approach to operative sustainability. This paper presents a narrative review that, following a 'review of reviews' approach, aims to summarize the key recommendations to improve the environmental sustainability of surgical theatres. Key domains of discussion identified across the literature included minimisation of volatile anaesthetics, reduction of operating theatre power consumption, optimisation of surgical approach, re-use and re-processing of surgical instruments, waste management, and research, education and leadership. Implementation of individual items in these domains has seen significant reductions in the environmental impact of operative practice. This comprehensive summary of recommendations lays the framework from which providers can assess the sustainability of their practice and for the development of encompassing guidelines to build an environmentally sustainable surgical service.

A systematic review of venous thromboembolism mechanical prophylaxis devices during surgery.

PURPOSE: Hospitalisation and surgery are major risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and graduated compression stockings (GCS) are common mechanical prophylaxis devices used to prevent VTE. This review compares the safety and efficacy of IPC and GCS used singularly and in combination for surgical patients. METHODS: Ovid Medline and Pubmed were searched in a systematic review of the literature, and relevant articles were assessed against eligibility criteria for inclusion along PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: This review is a narrative description and critical analysis of available evidence. Fourteen articles were included in this review after meeting the criteria. Results of seven studies comparing the efficacy of IPC versus GCS had high heterogeneity but overall suggested IPC was superior to GCS. A further seven studies compared the combination of IPC and GCS versus GCS alone, the results of which suggest that combination mechanical prophylaxis may be superior to GCS alone in high-risk patients. No studies compared combination therapy to IPC alone. IPC appeared to have a superior safety profile, although it had a worse compliance rate and the quality of evidence was poor. The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis may make mechanical prophylaxis superfluous in the post-operative setting. CONCLUSION: IPC may be superior to GCS when used as a single prophylactic device. A combination of IPC and GCS may be more efficacious than GCS alone for high-risk patients. Further high-quality research is needed focusing on clinical relevance, safety and comparing combination mechanical prophylaxis to IPC alone, particularly in high-risk surgical settings when pharmacological prophylaxis is contraindicated.

Does deep neuromuscular blockade provide improved outcomes in low pressure laparoscopic colorectal surgery? A single blinded randomized pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Low intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopic colorectal surgery may improve outcomes and reduce hospital stay, in addition to Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols. There is concern that low pressure reduces laparoscopic vision and may increase surgical complications. Deep neuromuscular blockade may abrogate any reduction in vision of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum. However, antagonism of deep neuromuscular blockade at completion of surgery necessitates the use of sugammadex, which is prohibitively expensive, if there are no surgical benefits and warrants further study. METHODS: A single institution, single blinded randomized controlled pilot study was performed comparing deep to moderate neuromuscular blockade in major laparoscopic colorectal surgery. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were randomized to deep or moderate neuromuscular blockade. There were no statistically significant differences between groups, when comparing key patient demographics, or surgeon satisfaction with view, which required increased pressure or further relaxation demands. The deep blockade group had increased QoR15 scores and a decrease in pain, C-Reactive Protein (CRP) measurements and operating times, although were non-significant. The moderate group had slightly higher incidents of Medical Emergency Team (MET) calls and more severe complications, although were non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: Low intra-abdominal pressure in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is feasible and allows adequate surgical visualization, regardless of the degree of neuromuscular blockade. Potential benefits of deep neuromuscular blockade may include improved pain and quality of recovery and a possible reduction of complications; however a larger cohort is required to confirm this. Future ERAS protocols may consider deep neuromuscular blockade with low intra-abdominal pressure to further benefit patients.

Reduced Laparoscopic Intra-abdominal Pressure During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Its Effect on Post-operative Pain: a Double-Blinded Randomised Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery is regarded as the gold standard for the surgical management of cholelithiasis. To improve post-operative pain, low-pressure laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LPLC) have been trialed. A recent systematic review found that LPLC reduced pain; however, many of the randomised control trials were at a high risk of bias and the overall quality of evidence was low. METHODS: One hundred patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised to a LPLC (8 mmHg) or a standard pressure laparoscopic cholecystectomy (12 mmHg) (SPLC) with surgeons and anaesthetists blinded to the pressure. Pressures were increased if vision was compromised. Primary outcomes were post-operative pain and analgesia requirements at 4-6 h and 24 h. RESULTS: Intra-operative visibility was significantly reduced in LPLC (p<0.01) resulting in a higher number of operations requiring the pressure to be increased (29% vs 8%, p=0.010); however, there were no differences in length of operation or post-operative outcomes. Pain scores were comparable at all time points across all pressures; however, recovery room fentanyl requirement was more than four times higher when comparing 8 to 12 mmHg (12.5mcg vs 60mcg, p=0.047). Nausea and vomiting was also higher when comparing these pressures (0/36 vs 7/60, p=0.033). Interestingly, when surgeons estimated the operating pressure, they were correct in only 69% of cases. CONCLUSION: Although pain scores were similar, there was a significant reduction in fentanyl requirement and nausea/vomiting in LPLC. Although LPLC compromised intra-operative visibility requiring increased pressure in some cases, there was no difference in complications, suggesting LPLC is safe and beneficial to attempt in all patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000205134).

Quality of recovery assessment of day case and multiday stay patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Objectives: Many laparoscopic cholecystectomy operations are performed with at least overnight admission. Current research shows that laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and feasible to do as a day case. Patient centred outcomes are less well understood. Material and Methods: Elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients at a single metropolitan hospital in Melbourne, Australia were surveyed 24 hours after surgery using the 15-question Quality of Recovery (QoR-15) survey. A comparison was made between day case surgeries and multi-day surgeries. Results: One hundred and eight patients were recruited consisting of 34 day case and 74 multi-day patients. Patient groups did not differ in terms of age, sex or postoperative morbidity. The multi-day group had a higher proportion of comorbid patients (p-value = 0.03). There was no significant dif- ference in overall QoR-15 score between the two groups, although there was an observed trend towards a higher score in the day case group (132.0 vs 127.9, p= 0.147). QoR-15 individual question results showed that day cases rated significantly better for sleep quality and for less feelings of anxiety or worry. The differences narrowed when comparing patient groups as they were booked (intention-to-treat). There were no identified sub-groups that had a significantly higher score if admitted multi-day. Conclusion: Quality of recovery following day case laparoscopic cholecystectomy is just as good, if not better, than multi-day cases. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy as a day case is both safe and economically superior to multi-day management. This gives further weight to current recommendations suggesting that the majority of laparoscopic cholecystectomy operations could be performed as day cases.