Avoiding pain during propofol injection in pediatric anesthesia: Hypnoanalgesia of the hand versus intravenous lidocaine.

INTRODUCTION: Pain related to injection of propofol during induction of anesthesia decreases from 66.8% without prevention, to 22-31% of cases when lidocaine is associated. Hypnoanalgesia of the hand is currently used for painful procedures in children but has never been evaluated in this indication. The primary aim of this prospective randomized single-blind study was to evaluate the efficacy of hypnoanalgesia of the hand for the prevention of moderate to severe pain during intravenous injection of propofol alone in comparison to lidocaine admixture. The secondary aim was to compare the global satisfaction of children in both methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients aged 7-14 years, ASA 1-2, admitted for scheduled surgery under general anesthesia were randomized into two groups. Group L received a mixture of 1% propofol (3 mg/kg) and 1% Lidocaine (0.3 mg/kg). Group H received 1% propofol (3 mg/kg) after hypnoanalgesia of the hand realized by a single experimented operator. A video was made in order to evaluate the pain related to propofol injection by a blinded observer using the 4-point score of Cameron (painful ≥ 2). The global satisfaction of children was evaluated in postanesthesia care unit and documented if visual analog score was <7/10. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were analyzed. The rate of painful patients did not differ significantly between groups (8.5% in group H [n = 47] vs 6.1% in group L [n = 49], OR= 0.70; 95% CI [0.13-3.35], p = 0.65), nor did the rate of nonsatisfied patients (10.6 in group H vs. 12.2% in group L, OR = 0.85; 95% CI [0.19-3.65], p = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that hypnoanalgesia of the hand alone is effective to prevent the pain related to propofol injection in children. No significant difference was found in comparison with lidocaine admixture nor for pain or satisfaction.

Pediatric Mini-Invasive Splenectomy Comparing Laparoscopy With or Without Robotic Approach: A Single-Center Study.

Background: The introduction of splenectomy in pediatric robotic surgery programs remains controversial. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of robotic assisted splenectomy (RAS) in children and compare its outcomes with the laparoscopic splenectomy (LAS). Method: A single institution retrospective study was performed (2011-2020). We used the minimally invasive splenectomy score described by Giza et al. to measure the level of technical difficulty. The data collected for each procedure included its duration, the need for blood transfusion, complications, analgesic use, and the length of hospital stay. A standard univariate analysis is applied. Results: We recorded 41 cases (26 LAS and 15 RAS). The mean age was 11 years [7.00; 13.5]. The operating time was 97 minutes [85.5-108] for LAS and 223 minutes [190-280] for RAS (P < .001). The length of stay was 6.50 days [5.00-8.00] for LAS and 5 days [5.00-5.50] for RAS (P = .055). The cumulative use of level III analgesic was not statically different (P = .29). Two cases of difficult splenectomy were found in each group with comparable performances. In the RAS, we demonstrated the improved outcomes with the progression of the learning curve of a single surgeon. Conclusions: In our experience (as in the literature), RAS remains safe, but offers no additional advantage compared to laparoscopy as the cost and the operating time are higher. Our study has the advantages of having a 9 years long evolving experience, including broad indications in comparison to other pediatric studies.

Incidence and predicting factors of perioperative complications during monitored anesthesia care for awake craniotomy.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess incidence and predicting factors of awake craniotomy complications. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Operating room and Post Anesthesia Care unit. PATIENTS: 162 patients who underwent 188 awake craniotomy procedures for brain tumor, ASA I to III, with monitored anesthesia care. MEASUREMENTS: We classified procedures in 3 groups: major event group, minor event group, and no event group. Major events were defined as respiratory failure requiring face mask or invasive ventilation; hemodynamic instability treated by vasoactive drugs, or bradycardia treated by atropine, bleeding >500 ml, transfusion, gaseous embolism, cardiac arrest; seizure, cerebral edema, or any events leading to stopping of the cerebral mapping. Minor event was defined as any complication not classified as major. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predicting factors of major complication, adjusted for age and ASA score. MAIN RESULTS: 45 procedures (24%) were classified in major event group, 126 (67%) in minor event group, and 17 (9%) in no event group. Seizure was the main complication (n = 13). Asthma (odds ratio: 10.85 [1.34; 235.6]), Remifentanil infusion (odds ratio: 2.97 [1.08; 9.85]) and length of the operation after the brain mapping (odds ratio per supplementary minute: 1.01 [1.01; 1.03]) were associated with major events. CONCLUSIONS: Previous medical history of asthma, remifentanil infusion and a long duration of neurosurgery after cortical mapping appear to be risk factors for major complications during AC.

The sevoflurane washout profile of seven recent anesthesia workstations for malignant hyperthermia-susceptible adults and infants: a bench test study.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative flushing of an anesthesia workstation is an alternative for preparation of the anesthesia workstation before use in malignant hyperthermia-susceptible patients (MHS). We studied in vitro, using a test lung, the washout profile of sevoflurane in 7 recent workstations during adult and, for the first time, pediatric ventilation patterns. METHODS: Anesthesia workstations were first primed with 3% sevoflurane for 2 hours and then prepared according to the recommendations of the Malignant Hyperthermia Association of the United States. The flush was done with maximal fresh gas flow (FGF) with a minute ventilation equal to 600 mL × 15, to reach a sevoflurane concentration of <5 parts per million. After flush, 2 clinical situations were simulated in vitro to test the efficiency of preparation: decrease of FGF from max to 10 L/min, or decrease of minute ventilation to 50 mL × 30, to simulate the ventilation of an MHS infant. RESULTS: We report washout delays for MHS patients for previously studied workstations (Primus®, Avance®, and Zeus®) and more interestingly, for machines not previously tested (Felix®, Flow-I®, Perseus®, and Leon®). An increase of sevoflurane concentration was observed when decreasing FGF (except for flow-I® and Leon®) and during simulation of MHS infant ventilation (except for Felix®). CONCLUSIONS: This descriptive study strongly suggests that washout profiles may differ for each anesthesia workstation. We advise the use of maximal FGF during preparation and anesthesia. Required flushing times are longer when preparing an anesthesia workstation before providing anesthesia for MHS infants.