Joint consensus on abdominal robotic surgery and anesthesia from a task force of the SIAARTI and SIC.

Minimally invasive surgical procedures have revolutionized the world of surgery in the past decades. While laparoscopy, the first minimally invasive surgical technique to be developed, is widely used and has been addressed by several guidelines and recommendations, the implementation of robotic-assisted surgery is still hindered by the lack of consensus documents that support healthcare professionals in the management of this novel surgical procedure. Here we summarize the available evidence and provide expert opinion aimed at improving the implementation and resolution of issues derived from robotic abdominal surgery procedures. A joint task force of Italian surgeons, anesthesiologists and clinical epidemiologists reviewed the available evidence on robotic abdominal surgery. Recommendations were graded according to the strength of evidence. Statements and recommendations are provided for general issues regarding robotic abdominal surgery, operating theatre organization, preoperative patient assessment and preparation, intraoperative management, and postoperative procedures and discharge. The consensus document provides evidence-based recommendations and expert statements aimed at improving the implementation and management of robotic abdominal surgery.

Ultrasound-guided obturator nerve block: interfascial injection versus a neurostimulation-assisted technique.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Interfascial injection of local anesthetic under ultrasound guidance has been proposed as a new technique for performing an obturator nerve block. We hypothesized that interfascial needle placement could supplant nerve stimulation as the end point for local anesthetic injection during ultrasound-guided obturator nerve block after the division of the obturator nerve. METHODS: Fifty spinal anesthesia patients who had experienced unilateral adductor muscle spasm during transurethral bladder tumor resection were randomly allocated to receive either 5 mL of lidocaine 2% injected under ultrasound guidance into the interfascial plane between the adductor longus and the adductor brevis and between the adductor brevis and the magnus muscles (US group) or an injection of 5 mL of lidocaine 2% in combination with nerve stimulation after identification of the divisions of the obturator nerve (USENS group). At 5, 10, and 15 minutes after block placement, muscle spasm was assessed by an independent observer masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was motor block onset time. Secondary outcomes were block performance time, total anesthesia-related time, motor block success at 15 minutes, and number of needle passes. RESULTS: Motor block onset time did not differ between the 2 groups (6.2 minutes for USENS versus 7.2 minutes for US group, P = 0.225), block performance time was longer in the USENS than in the US group (3.0 versus 1.6 minutes, P < 0.001), and total anesthesia-related time did not differ between the 2 groups (9.2 versus 8.9 minutes, P = 0.71). Block success rate at 15 minutes was 100% in the USENS group and 88% in the US group (P = 0.23). There was no difference in the number of needle passes (2.3 versus 2.1, P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: In ultrasound-guided obturator nerve block performed after the division of the nerve, injection of local anesthetic between the planes of the adductor muscles is comparable to nerve stimulation.

Risk is not our business: safety of thoracic surgery in patients using antiplatelet therapy.

American Heart Association recommendations have changed preoperative management of patients with antiplatelet therapy (APT). We assessed safety and outcomes of surgery in patients who were receiving APT. A prospective study of patients operated on while receiving APT was matched with those with no APT (ratio 1:4), using the propensity score method. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify covariates among imbalanced baseline patient variables. Both χ(2) test and Fisher's test were used to calculate the probability value for the comparison of dichotomous variables. Between January 2008 and December 2010, 38 patients who received APT at the time of surgery were matched with 141 patients who had not received APT. APT indications were a history of myocardial infarction, coronary artery by-pass graft and/or valve replacement (19), coronary artery stent (11) and severe peripheral vascular disease (8). None of the patients required re-operation for bleeding. Two patients received blood transfusions. The amount of chest tube drainage was not statistically significantly different. There were no statistically significant differences between the outcomes for the operative time, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss or morbidity. The results show that thoracic surgical procedures can safely be performed in patients receiving APT at the time of surgery, with no increased risk of bleeding or morbidity and no differences in the operative time and the length of hospital stay.