Moderate Intra-Abdominal Pressure Levels in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Seem to Have No Negative Impact on Clinical Outcomes.

Introduction: Radical prostatectomy is increasingly performed laparoscopically with robot assistance (RALRP). RALRP, as with all laparoscopic procedures, requires a pneumoperitoneum, which might result in peritoneal inflammatory response reactions and postoperative pain. The aim of this retrospective single-centre study was to analyse the effects of a pneumoperitoneum during RARLP on clinical outcomes. Methods: All patients who underwent robot-guided prostatectomy in our clinic were included, with the exception of patients who were converted to open prostatectomy. C-reactive protein was used as a marker for the primary outcome, namely the postoperative inflammatory response. Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) was evaluated as a potential factor influencing inflammation. In addition, the waist-hip ratio was used to estimate the amount of visceral adipose tissue, and the administration of dexamethasone was considered as a factor influencing inflammation. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to determine postoperative pain. Patients were consecutively recruited between 1 September 2020 and 31 March 2022. Results: A total of 135 consecutive patients were included. The median waist-hip ratio was 0.55. The median duration of the pneumoperitoneum was 143 min. The median values of the average and maximum IAP values were 10 mmHg and 15 mmHg, respectively. The mean CRP of the first postoperative day was 6.2 mg/dL. The median VAS pain level decreased from 2 to 1 from the first to the third postoperative day. On the first postoperative day, 16 patients complained of shoulder pain. In addition, 134 patients were given some form of opioid pain treatment following surgery. Conclusion: We could not identify any relevant associations between the duration and IAP of the pneumoperitoneum and the indirect markers of inflammation or indicators of pain, or between the latter and the amount of visceral adipose tissue. In addition, we found no significant effect of the administration of dexamethasone on postoperative inflammation. The results point to a noninferior tolerability of moderate pressure during the procedure compared to the commonly utilised higher pressure, yet this must be confirmed in randomised controlled trials.

Volatile versus propofol sedation after cardiac valve surgery: a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal intensive care of patients undergoing valve surgery is a complex balancing act between sedation for monitoring and timely postoperative awakening. It remains unclear, if these requirements can be fulfilled by volatile sedations in intensive care medicine in an efficient manner. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the time to extubation and secondary the workload required. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized single-center trial at a tertiary university hospital to evaluate the postoperative management of open valve surgery patients. The study was randomized with regard to the use of volatile sedation compared to propofol sedation. Sedation was discontinued 60 min after admission for critical postoperative monitoring. RESULTS: We observed a significantly earlier extubation (91 ± 39 min vs. 167 ± 77 min; p < 0.001), eye-opening (86 ± 28 min vs. 151 ± 71 min; p < 0.001) and command compliance (93 ± 38 min vs. 164 ± 75 min; p < 0.001) using volatile sedation, which in turn was associated with a significantly increased workload of a median of 9:56 min (± 4:16 min) set-up time. We did not observe any differences in complications. Cardiopulmonary bypass time did not differ between the groups 101 (IQR 81; 113) versus 112 (IQR 79; 136) minutes p = 0.36. CONCLUSIONS: Using volatile sedation is associated with few minutes additional workload in assembling and enables a significantly accelerated evaluation of vulnerable patient groups. Volatile sedation has considerable advantages and emerges as a safe sedation technique in our vulnerable study population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials registration (NCT04958668) was completed on 1 July 2021.

Red blood cell transfusion in patients undergoing elective primary glioblastoma resection.

BACKGROUND: Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in patients undergoing major elective cranial surgery is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. This study aims to identify the clinical outcome of transfused glioblastoma patients undergoing primary surgical tumor resection and identify risk factors for RBC transfusion. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 2009 and 2019, 406 patients underwent elective primary glioblastoma resection. For multivariate analysis to assess risk factors for RBC transfusion, logistic regression was conducted. The impact of RBC transfusion on overall survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: In total, 36 (8.9%) patients received RBC transfusion. Preoperative anemia rate was significantly higher in transfused patients compared to patients without RBC transfusion (33.3 vs 6.5%; p<0.0001). Postoperative complications as well as hospital length of stay (LOS) (p<0.0001) were significantly increased in transfused patients compared to non-transfused patients. After multivariate analysis, risk factors for RBC transfusion were preoperative anemia (p<0.0001), intraoperative blood loss (p<0.0001), female gender (p=0.0056) and radiation (p=0.0064). Kaplan-Meier curves revealed that RBC transfusion and being elderly (age ≥75 years) were relevant for overall survival. DISCUSSION: RBC transfusion is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing elective primary glioblastoma resection. Preoperative anemia and intraoperative blood loss are major risk factors for RBC transfusion. Preoperative anemia management and blood conservation strategies are crucial in patients undergoing elective primary glioblastoma resection.

Evaluation of volatile sedation in the postoperative intensive care of patients recovering from heart valve surgery: protocol for a randomised, controlled, monocentre trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing heart valve surgery are predominantly transferred postoperatively to the intensive care unit (ICU) under continuous sedation. Volatile anaesthetics are an increasingly used treatment alternative to intravenous substances in the ICU. As subject to inhalational uptake and elimination, the resulting pharmacological benefits have been repeatedly demonstrated. Therefore, volatile anaesthetics appear suitable to meet the growing demands of fast-track cardiac surgery. However, their use requires special preparation at the bedside and trained medical and nursing staff, which might limit the pharmacological benefits. The aim of our work is to assess whether the temporal advantages of recovery under volatile sedation outweigh the higher effort of special preparation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is designed to evaluate the differences between intravenous sedatives (n=48) and volatile sedatives (n=48) in continued intensive care sedation. This study will be conducted as a prospective, randomised, controlled, single-blinded, monocentre trial at a German university hospital in consenting adult patients undergoing heart valve surgery at a university hospital. This observational study will examine the necessary preparation time, staff consultation and overall feasibility of the chosen sedation method. For this purpose, the continuation of sedation in the ICU with volatile sedatives is considered as one study arm and with intravenous sedatives as the comparison group. Due to rapid elimination and quick awakening after the termination of sedation, closer consultation between the attending physician and the ICU nursing staff is required, in addition to a prolonged setup time. Study analysis will include the required setup time, time from admission to extubation as primary outcome and neurocognitive assessability. In addition, possible operation-specific (blood loss, complications), treatment parameters (catecholamine dosages, lung function) and laboratory results (acute kidney injury, acid base balance (lactataemia), liver failure) as influencing factors will be collected. The study-relevant data will be extracted from the continuous digital records of the patient data management system after the patient has been discharged from the ICU. For statistical evaluation, 95% CIs will be calculated for the median time to extubation and neurocognitive assessability, and the association will be assessed with a Cox regression model. In addition, secondary binary outcome measures will be evaluated using Fisher's exact tests. Further descriptive and exploratory statistical analyses are also planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Board of the University of Frankfurt, Germany (#20-1050). Informed consent of all individual patients will be obtained before randomisation. Results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical trials registration (NCT04958668) was completed on 1 July 2021.