Effect of an individualized versus standard pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy on postoperative recovery: a randomized clinical trial in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain whether individualization of pneumoperitoneum pressures during laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative recovery. This study compared an individualized pneumoperitoneum pressure (IPP) strategy with a standard pneumoperitoneum pressure (SPP) strategy with respect to postoperative recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: This was a multicentre RCT. The IPP strategy comprised modified patient positioning, deep neuromuscular blockade, and abdominal wall prestretching targeting the lowest intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) that maintained acceptable workspace. The SPP strategy comprised patient positioning according to the surgeon's preference, moderate neuromuscular blockade and a fixed IAP of 12 mmHg. The primary endpoint was physiological postoperative recovery, assessed by means of the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale. Secondary endpoints included recovery in other domains and overall recovery, the occurrence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, duration of hospital stay, and plasma markers of inflammation up to postoperative day 3. RESULTS: Of 166 patients, 85 received an IPP strategy and 81 an SPP strategy. The IPP strategy was associated with a higher probability of physiological recovery (odds ratio (OR) 2·77, 95 per cent c.i. 1·19 to 6·40, P = 0·017; risk ratio (RR) 1·82, 1·79 to 1·87, P = 0·049). The IPP strategy was also associated with a higher probability of emotional (P = 0·013) and overall (P = 0·011) recovery. Intraoperative adverse events were less frequent with the IPP strategy (P < 0·001) and the plasma neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio was lower (P = 0·029). Other endpoints were not affected. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery, an IPP strategy was associated with faster recovery, fewer intraoperative complications and less inflammation than an SPP strategy. Registration number: NCT02773173 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

ANTECEDENTES: No se sabe con certeza si individualizar las presiones del neumoperitoneo durante la cirugía laparoscópica mejora la recuperación postoperatoria. Comparamos una estrategia con individualización de la presión del neumoperitoneo (individualised pneumoperitoneum pressure, IPP) frente a una estrategia con presión estándar del neumoperitoneo (standard pneumoperitoneum pressure, SPP) respecto a la recuperación postoperatoria tras cirugía colorrectal laparoscópica. MÉTODOS: Ensayo clínico aleatorizado multicéntrico. La estrategia IPP consistió en una modificación de la posición, bloqueo neuromuscular profundo, y una distensión de la pared abdominal conseguida con la presión intraabdominal (intra-abdominal pressure, IAP) más baja en la que el espacio quirúrgico operativo siguiera siendo aceptable. La estrategia SPP consistió en una posición de acuerdo con la preferencia del cirujano, bloqueo neuromuscular moderado, e IAP fija de 12 mm Hg. El resultado primario fue la recuperación fisiológica postoperatoria, evaluada mediante la escala de calidad en la recuperación postoperatoria (Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale, PQRS). Los resultados secundarios incluyeron la recuperación en otros dominios y la recuperación global, la aparición de complicaciones intraoperatorias y postoperatorias, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, y los valores de los marcadores inflamatorios séricos durante tres días postoperatorios. RESULTADOS: De un total de 166 pacientes, 85 recibieron una estrategia IPP y 81 una estrategia SPP. La estrategia IPP se asoció con una elevada probabilidad de recuperación fisiológica (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio OR, 2,8 (i.c. del 95% 1,2-6,4); P = 0,017, razón de riesgo, 1,8 (i.c. del 95% 1,7-1,9), P = 0,05)). La estrategia IPP también se asoció con una elevada probabilidad de recuperación emotiva (P = 0,013) y global (P = 0,011). Los eventos adversos intraoperatorios fueron menos frecuentes con la estrategia IPP (P < 0,001) y la tasa neutrófilo-linfocito fue más baja (P = 0,029). No se observaron cambios en otras variables. CONCLUSIÓN: En esta cohorte de pacientes sometidos a cirugía colorrectal laparoscópica, una estrategia IPP se asoció con una recuperación más rápida, menos complicaciones intraoperatorias y menos inflamación en comparación con una estrategia SPP.

Correction to: An individualised versus a conventional pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy during colorectal laparoscopic surgery: rationale and study protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical study.

After publication of our article [1] the authors have notified us that there are changes in the primary outcome and the statistical analysis plan of the study.

An individualised versus a conventional pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy during colorectal laparoscopic surgery: rationale and study protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical study.

BACKGROUND: A recent study shows that a multifaceted strategy using an individualised intra-abdominal pressure titration strategy during colorectal laparoscopic surgery results in an acceptable workspace at low intra-abdominal pressure in most patients. The multifaceted strategy, focused on lower to individualised intra-abdominal pressures, includes prestretching the abdominal wall during initial insufflation, deep neuromuscular blockade, low tidal volume ventilation settings and a modified lithotomy position. The study presented here tests the hypothesis that this strategy improves outcomes of patients scheduled for colorectal laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: The Individualized Pneumoperitoneum Pressure in Colorectal Laparoscopic Surgery versus Standard Therapy (IPPCollapse-II) study is a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, single-blinded randomised 1:1 clinical study that runs in four academic hospitals in Spain. Patients scheduled for colorectal laparoscopic surgery with American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I to III who are aged > 18 years and are without cognitive deficits are randomised to an individualised pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy (the intervention group) or to a conventional pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy (the control group). The primary outcome is recovery assessed with the Post-operative Quality of Recovery Scale (PQRS) at postoperative day 1. Secondary outcomes include PQRS score in the post anaesthesia care unit and at postoperative day 3, postoperative complications until postoperative day 28, hospital length of stay and process-related outcomes. DISCUSSION: The IPPCollapse-II study will be the first randomised clinical study that assesses the impact of an individualised pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy focused on working with the lowest intra-abdominal pressure during colorectal laparoscopic surgery on relevant patient-centred outcomes. The results of this large study, to be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in international peer-reviewed journals, are of ultimate importance for optimising the care and safety of laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Selection of patient-reported outcomes as the primary outcome of this study facilitates the translation into clinical practice. Access to source data will be made available through anonymised datasets upon request and after agreement of the Steering Committee of the IPPCollapse-II study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02773173 . Registered on 16 May 2016. EudraCT, 2016-001693-15. Registered on 8 August 2016.

[Preoperative management of anemia in oncologic surgery]. / Manejo preoperatorio de la anemia en cirugía oncológica.

Preoperative anemia in patients with cancer is highly prevalent, is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and is a risk factor for transfusion. There is evidence that patients who undergo transfusions have higher morbidity, increased cancer recurrence and poorer survival. The pathophysiology of anemia is multifactorial, with an inflammatory component to which chronic blood loss and nutritional deficiencies can be associated. Therefore, preoperative anemia in patients with cancer should be treated appropriately, given that there is sufficient time in the preoperative period. Of the currently available options, parenteral iron is an effective alternative, especially for those types of cancer that have an associated hemorrhagic component.

Spinal anaesthesia in a patient with post-spine surgery dural ectasia.

Dural sac ectasia is a very infrequent anatomical abnormality, usually caused by connective tissue diseases, as Marfan syndrome. Very few cases have been described being a consequence of a previous spine surgical procedure. We describe the case of an elderly patient who should be operated on twice due to sub-occlusive colon disease. Surgery was performed under spinal anaesthesia. A dural sac ectasia was suspected after the first procedure and the abdominal X-ray was reviewed. The characteristics of the anatomical alteration and the course of both anaesthetic procedures were described. X-ray and CT images were provided.

[Prophylaxis for hypotension during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: a randomized trial comparing hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 to ephedrine]. / Prevención de la hipotensión arterial en cesáreas con anestesia subaracnoidea. Estudio prospectivo, aleatorizado comparativo entre hidroxietilalmidón 130/0,4 y efedrina.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Spinal anesthesia is the technique of choice for scheduled or emergency cesarean section, but the prevalence of hypotension is high in this setting. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of a colloid (6% hydroxyethyl starch [HES] 130/0.4) to ephedrine for preventing hypotension. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing elective or emergency cesarean section (in non-life-threatening situations) were enrolled. Patients were randomized to 3 groups for prophylaxis. The first ephedrine group received 5 mg of ephedrine intravenously (EPHE-5); the second ephedrine group received 10 mg of the drug intravenously (EPHE-10); and the HES group received 500 mL of HES 130/0.4 in rapid infusion n 15 minutes. We recorded systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate after 10 minutes in the operating room and 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes after injection of the anesthetic. We also assessed the sensory and motor blockades on both sides 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes after injection. Neonatal status was assessed by Apgar score and umbilical cord blood gas analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients, 33 in each ephedrine group and 30 in the HES group, were enrolled. Blood pressure decreased similarly in all 3 groups (36% EPHE-5 group, 36% EPHE-10 group and 40% HES group); no significant between-group differences were observed. Nor were there significant differences in the percentages of patients requiring bolus doses of ephedrine to treat hypotension (23% in the HES group vs 33% in the EPHE-5 group and 27% in the EPHE-10 group) or in the cumulative doses of ephedrine. Neonatal status was also similarly satisfactory in all 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: HES 130/0.4 is as useful for hypotension prophylaxis as 5-mg or 10-mg intravenous doses of ephedrine. HES 130/0.4 might be a substitute for sympathomimetic agents if adverse effects are predicted or contraindications to the use of such drugs are present.