Low-dose caudal versus dorsal penile nerve block for postoperative analgesia after circumcision: a randomized comparative study.

INTRODUCTION: Paediatric male circumcision is a painful surgical procedure, which is usually carried out under general anaesthesia. Regional analgesic techniques, including dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB) and caudal nerve block (CNB), are superior to opioid and non-opioid systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control after circumcision. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The purpose of our study was to compare the efficacy, duration of postoperative analgesia, and complications of DPNB, CNB, and the combination of 2 blocks. Eighty-one male patients aged from 3 to 12 years scheduled for circumcision were distributed into 3 groups, each consisting of 27 patients; group 1 (DPNB group), group 2 (CNB group), and group 3 for combined blockade. This study compared the 3 groups in terms of intraoperative vital signs: heart rate and blood pressure, postoperative Wong-Baker score, and complications (nausea, vomiting, pruritus, urinary retention, and constipation). RESULTS: The intraoperative haemodynamics did not differ between the 3 groups of the study. There is significant difference in the Wong-Baker scale postoperatively at 1, 3, and 24 hours, being significantly less in the CNB group and combined blockade group than in the DPNB group, but there was no significant difference between the CNB group and the combined blockade group. The incidence of complications showed no significant intergroup difference, except for urinary retention being lower with DPNB. CONCLUSIONS: Both caudal and combined blockade were superior to DPNB for intraoperative and postoperative analgesia after circumcision. CNB and combined blockade was associated with significantly higher incidence of urinary retention compared to DPNB. Also, there was no additional benefit to the analgesic efficacy from combining both blocks.

Pulse Pressure Variation-Based Intraoperative Fluid Management Versus Traditional Fluid Management for Colon Cancer Patients Undergoing Open Mass Resection and Anastomosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Bowel edema leads to decreased perfusion and oxygenation of the intestine at the anastomotic site after colonic mass resection with failure of healing and leakage. Additionally, dehydration causes bowel hypoperfusion and difficulty healing with more complications. Fluid therapy guided by dynamic monitoring of fluid response can help avoid bowel dehydration and edema with fewer complications. Objectives: The main goal of this study was to compare the effects of intraoperative fluid therapy based on pulse pressure variation (PPV) to traditional fluid therapy to maintain adequate hydration without intraoperative instability of hemodynamics and postoperative complications. Methods: This randomized controlled study was conducted on 90 adult patients (age range: 18-70 years) undergoing elective open colonic mass resection and anastomosis at Eldemerdash Hospital, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. There were two groups of patients, namely group A (n = 45; conventional fluid management [CFM] group) and group B (n = 45; goal-guided fluid management [GGFM] group based on PPV), using randomly generated data from a computer. Intraoperative fluids and vasopressors were given using GGFM or routine care. The key tool for directing hemodynamic management in the GGFM algorithm was the fluid protocol and PPV. As a result, the outcomes were measured to include the volume of intraoperative fluid, water fraction, and postoperative complications. Results: In this study, 90 patients underwent analysis. Both groups' demographics were similar (P > 0.05). Baseline characteristics and surgical procedures did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05). Both the amount of urine output and the intraoperative administration of crystalloids were statistically significantly higher in group A (P < 0.05). The two groups' heart rate, mean arterial pressure and intraoperative usage of colloids and ephedrine were not statistically different (P > 0.05). Water fraction, bowel recovery, anastomotic leak, and length of hospital stay were significantly higher in the CFM group (P < 0.05). Conclusions: For patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I - II undergoing elective open resection of colonic mass and anastomosis, PPV-based GGFM, a less invasive tool for intraoperative fluid management, might be a better option than CFM.

Routine point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) assessment of gastric antral content in traumatic emergency surgical patients for prevention of aspiration pneumonitis: an observational clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Polytrauma patients are at a higher risk of delayed gastric emptying. To assess the gastric volume, a reliable diagnostic tool is needed to prevent the occurrence of aspiration pneumonia, which remains a serious complication associated with anesthesia. Gastric antral ultrasound can provide reliable information about the size of the gastric antrum in traumatized patients undergoing emergency surgery. METHODS: A prospective observational study of 45 polytrauma patients undergoing emergency surgery under general anesthesia was carried out. Prior to induction of anesthesia in the emergency department, gastric ultrasound was performed for qualitative and quantitative assessment of the gastric antrum in a supine position and right lateral decubitus (RLD) position. This was followed by routine placement of the nasogastric tube to aspirate and calculate the volume of the stomach contents. RESULTS: Of the 45 polytrauma patients, the risk assessment of aspiration and the anesthesia technique changed in 14 patients (31.1%) after the gastric ultrasound examination. A very good relationship existed between the expected stomach volume at the RLD position and the suction volume in the nasogastric tube. In all cases, no aspirations were documented. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound examination of the stomach in polytrauma patients allows assessing the size and type of stomach contents. The data obtained can influence the choice of anesthesia technique and reduce the risk of aspiration pneumonia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov . registry number: NCT04083677 on September 6, 2019.