Satisfactory analgesia with minimal emesis in day surgeries: a randomised controlled trial of morphine versus hydromorphone.

BACKGROUND: Opioids remain the mainstay therapy for post-surgical pain. Although both morphine and hydromorphone are potent analgesics, it has been suggested that hydromorphone is clinically better. Our primary objective was to compare morphine with hydromorphone for achieving satisfactory analgesia with minimal emesis (SAME). METHODS: We performed a multicentre RCT in 402 patients having ambulatory surgery. A random computer-generated allocation, stratified by site, was developed by our pharmacy. Concealment was achieved by allocating patients to study groups by nurses using sequentially coded study medication syringes having equi-analgesic doses, made available in the postoperative recovery room. Patients, health providers, and research personnel were blinded. The operating-room protocol allowed for routine anaesthetic management, excluding the use of study medications. Study medications were administered by recovery nurses as per an algorithm. Analyses utilised the intention-to-treat principle, and regression analyses were used for outcomes as appropriate and using multiple imputation. RESULTS: Of 751 patients, 402 were randomised between morphine (n=199) and hydromorphone (n=203). Baseline and intraoperative variables were comparable across the groups. The odds of achieving SAME were similar between the groups (odds ratio: 1.01; 95% confidence interval: 0.57-1.80). There were no differences in the side-effects of severe itching, respiratory depression, or sedation. Patient satisfaction, discharge times, and post-discharge outcomes, including pain and nausea/vomiting over 24 h, were also comparable. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between morphine and hydromorphone regarding analgesia and common side-effects. The appearance of dose-limiting side-effects is idiosyncratic; the clinical decision must be based on individual responses. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02223377.

The effect of bariatric surgery on breast cancer incidence and characteristics: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a major risk factor for breast cancer. This study examines whether bariatric surgery affects breast cancer incidence in women with obesity compared to BMI-matched controls. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched. Primary studies on female breast cancer incidence after bariatric surgery were eligible. RESULTS: 11 studies were included (n = 1,106,939). The rate of cancer diagnosis was lower in the surgical group (0.54%) compared to control (0.84%; risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95%CI 0.37-0.67, I2 = 88%). The results were robust to sensitivity analyses for patient age and study size. Bariatric surgery was associated with increased risk of stage I cancer (RR 1.23, 95%CI 1.06-1.44) and reduced risk of stage III or IV cancer (RR 0.50, 95%CI 0.28-0.88). Hormone receptor characteristics were not affected. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery is associated with reduced incidence and earlier stage at diagnosis of breast cancer in women with obesity compared to BMI-matched controls.

Surgical attitudes toward preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging in women with early-stage breast cancer.

Background: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (mri) is commonly requested by surgeons in the initial workup of women with breast cancer; however, its use is controversial. We performed a survey of breast cancer surgeons across Canada to investigate current knowledge about, attitudes to, and self-reported use of preoperative breast mri in a publicly funded health care system in light of the limited evidence to support it. Methods: All identified general surgeons in Canada were mailed a survey instrument designed to probe current practice and knowledge of published trials. Results: Of 403 responding surgeons, 233 (58%) indicated that they performed breast cancer surgery. Of those 233, 218 (94%) had access to breast mri and completed the entire survey. Overall, 54.6% of responding surgeons felt that breast mri was useful in surgical planning, and more than half (58.3%) indicated that their frequency of use was likely to increase over the next 5 years. Surgeons found preoperative mri most useful in detecting mammographically occult disease (71.5% of respondents) and in planning for breast-conserving surgery (57.3%). The main limitations reported were timely access to mri (51%) and false positives (36.7%). Responses suggest a knowledge gap in awareness of published trials in breast mri. Conclusions: Our study found that, in early-stage breast cancer, self-reported use of mri by breast cancer surgeons in Canada varied widely. Reported indications did not align with published data, and significant gaps in self-reported knowledge of the data were evident. Our results would support the development and dissemination of guidelines to optimize use of mri.

Laparoscopic and open incisional hernia repair: a comparison study.

BACKGROUND: Techniques for performing laparoscopic incisional hernia repair have been described and some advantages over conventional open repair reported. However, most reported series of laparoscopic incisional hernia procedures are small, and only one has included a comparison with open repairs. METHODS: From December 1993 to January 1998, we prospectively collected operative and outcome data on 56 consecutive laparoscopic prosthetic repairs of large incisional hernias. The data were compared with those from a retrospective view of 49 open incisional hernia repairs done in January 1991 to December 1993. RESULTS: The open and laparoscopic repair groups were comparable in patient age, sex, preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists score, hernia size, and history of previous repair. Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group; duration of hospitalization and number of perioperative complications were significantly greater in the open group. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, laparoscopic repair of incisional hernias took longer to perform than open repair but was associated with fewer perioperative complications and a shorter hospital stay.

Local breast cancer recurrence after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for invasive cancer: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The main priorities in the surgical treatment of patients with breast cancer are to achieve cure, local control and prevent recurrence. It is increasingly important to address quality of life and self-image with women undergoing surgical intervention for breast cancer. There is a lack of consensus as to the oncologic safety of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the literature and compare the frequency of recurrence in patients with and without IBR following mastectomy for breast cancer. METHODS: Two independent investigators searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database using predefined search terms. After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 10 articles remained. Each article was assessed for quality. Relevant data was collected including recurrence rates, cancer stage, type of mastectomy and reconstruction, adjuvant treatments, and duration of follow-up. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was good at 74% (95% CI: 0, 93%). There was no evidence of study heterogeneity (p for Q-statistic=0.34 and I(2)=12%). The OR ratio for recurrence of breast cancer for mastectomy with IBR as compared to mastectomy alone was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.54). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated no evidence for increased frequency of local breast cancer recurrence with IBR compared with mastectomy alone.

Systematic review of radioguided surgery for non-palpable breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review examines whether radioguided localization surgery (RGL) (radioguided occult lesion localization - ROLL and radioguided seed localization - RSL) for non-palpable breast cancer lesions produces lower positive margin rates than standard wire-guided localization surgery. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature review to identify clinical studies using either ROLL or RSL. Included studies examined invasive or in situ BC and reported pathologically assessed margin status or specimen volume/weight. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and quality and abstracted relevant data on patient and surgical outcomes. Quantitative data analyses were performed. RESULTS: Fifty-two clinical studies on ROLL (n = 46) and RSL (n = 6) were identified. Twenty-seven met our inclusion criteria: 12 studies compared RGL to WGL and 15 studies were single cohorts using RGL. Ten studies were included in the quantitative analyses. Data for margin status and re-operation rates from 4 randomized controlled trials (RCT; n = 238) and 6 cohort studies were combined giving a combined odds ratio (OR) of 0.367 and 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.277 to 0.487 (p < 0.001) for margins status and OR 0.347, 95% CI: 0.250 to 0.481 (p < 0.001) for re-operation rates. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review of RGL versus WGL demonstrate that RGL technique produces lower positive margins rates and fewer re-operations. While this review is limited by the small size and quality of RCTs, the odds ratios suggest that RGL may be a superior technique to guide surgical resection of non-palpable breast cancers. These results should be confirmed by larger, multi-centered RCTs.