Difficult Tracheal Intubation and Airway Outcomes after Radiation for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to characterize the incidence and management of difficult tracheal intubations (DTIs) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) after primary radiation therapy (RT). METHODS: The study was a retrospective review of airway assessment and outcomes in post-RT NPC patients. Primary analysis was performed on patients who underwent post-RT procedures, who were split into non-DTI and DTI groups. Patients were classified as DTI if they (i) required >1 attempt to intubate, (ii) failed to be intubated, or (iii) experienced complications attributed to airway management. Secondary analysis was performed between patients who underwent post-RT procedures (procedure group) and those who did not (control group). RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty patients were included, and 71.3% underwent post-RT procedures, with no differences in characteristics between the procedure and control groups. One-hundred and fifty procedures were identified, and 28.0% were categorized as DTI. There was no difference in patient characteristics or airway assessment measures between DTI and non-DTI groups. Regression analysis revealed concurrent cervical mobility restriction, and trismus increased DTI incidence by 7.1-fold (p = 0.011). Being non-White was an independent predictor of DTI. The incidence of high-grade intraoperative laryngoscopic view was lower in the non-DTI compared to the DTI group (20.4% vs. 64.3%, p < 0.0001). Failure to intubate occurred in 2.0% of cases, and 6.0% cases had perioperative complications. Based on preoperative assessment, sensitivity of predicting DTI was 54.8% and specificity was 63.9%. CONCLUSION: NPC patients frequently undergo post-RT procedures requiring complex airway management. Rates of DTI and failed intubation are significantly higher than those in the general surgical population, and the ability to predict DTI with standard preoperative airway measures is poor. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 134:120-126, 2024.

Erector Spinae Plane Block When Neuraxial Analgesia Is Contraindicated by Clotting Abnormalities.

We describe 4 cases in which patients with coagulopathies, an absolute contraindication to epidural/paravertebral blocks, received an erector spinae plane block to manage severe thoracic pain with respiratory impairment. Intubation was avoided in 2 cases, and weaning from the ventilator was facilitated in 2 cases. Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block is simple to perform, has a low risk profile, and provides an excellent analgesic alternative.

Movement-Evoked Pain Versus Pain at Rest in Postsurgical Clinical Trials and Meta-Analyses: Protocol for a Follow-Up Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is one of the most prevalent and disabling complications of surgery that is associated with personal suffering, delayed functional recovery, prolonged hospital stay, perioperative complications, and chronic postsurgical pain. Accumulating evidence has pointed to the important distinction between pain at rest (PAR) and movement-evoked pain (MEP) after surgery. In most studies including both measures, MEP has been shown to be substantially more severe than PAR. Furthermore, as MEP is commonly experienced during normal activities (eg, breathing, coughing, and walking), it has a greater adverse functional impact than PAR. In a previous systematic review conducted in 2011, only 39% of reviewed trials included MEP as a trial outcome and 52% failed to identify the pain outcome as either PAR or MEP. Given the recent observations of postsurgical pain trials that continue to neglect the distinction between PAR and MEP, this updated review seeks to evaluate the degree of progress in this area. OBJECTIVE: This updated review will include postsurgical clinical trials and meta-analyses in which the primary outcome was early postoperative pain intensity. The primary outcome for this review is the reporting of MEP (vs PAR) as an outcome measure for each trial and meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes include whether trials and meta-analyses distinguished between PAR and MEP. METHODS: To be consistent with the 2011 review that we are updating, this review will again focus on randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, from Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online and EMBASE databases, focusing on pain treatment after thoracotomy, knee arthroplasty, and hysterectomy in humans. Trials and meta-analyses will be characterized as to whether or not they assessed PAR and MEP; whether their pain outcome acknowledged the distinction between PAR and MEP; and, for trials assessing MEP, which pain-evoking maneuver(s) were used. RESULTS: Scoping review and pilot data extraction are under way, and the results are expected by March 2020. CONCLUSIONS: It is our belief that every postsurgical analgesic trial should include MEP as an outcome measure. The previous 2011 review was expected to have an impact on more widespread assessment of MEP in subsequent postoperative pain treatment trials. Thus, the purpose of this follow-up review is to reevaluate the frequency of use of MEP as a trial outcome, compared with PAR, in more recently published postoperative pain trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019125855; https://tinyurl.com/qw9dty8. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/15309.