Prevention of persistent pain with lidocaine infusions in breast cancer surgery (PLAN): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Persistent pain is a common yet debilitating complication after breast cancer surgery. Given the pervasive effects of this pain disorder on the patient and healthcare system, post-mastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) is becoming a larger population health problem, especially as the prognosis and survivorship of breast cancer increases. Interventions that prevent persistent pain after breast surgery are needed to improve the quality of life of breast cancer survivors. An intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion has emerged as a potential intervention to decrease the incidence of PMPS. We aim to determine the definitive effects of this intervention in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. METHODS: PLAN will be a multicenter, parallel-group, blinded, 1:1 randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 1,602 patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Adult patients scheduled for a lumpectomy or mastectomy will be randomized to receive an intravenous 2% lidocaine bolus of 1.5 mg/kg with induction of anesthesia, followed by a 2.0 mg/kg/h infusion until the end of surgery, or placebo solution (normal saline) at the same volume. The primary outcome will be the incidence of persistent pain at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of pain and opioid consumption at 1 h, 1-3 days, and 12 months after surgery, as well as emotional, physical, and functional parameters, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to provide definitive evidence on an intervention that could potentially prevent persistent pain after breast cancer surgery. If this trial is successful, lidocaine infusion would be integrated as standard of care in breast cancer management. This inexpensive, widely available, and easily administered intervention has the potential to reduce pain and suffering in an already afflicted patient population, decrease the substantial costs of chronic pain management, potentially decrease opioid use, and improve the quality of life in patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04874038, Dr. James Khan. Date of registration: May 5, 2021).

Comparative Assessment of Pain during Infiltration by a Two-stage Infiltration Technique: A Double-blind Clinical Trial.

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess and compare the pain during infiltration by a modified two-stage local anesthetic infiltration technique under topical anesthesia (TA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-over double-blind study, 30 volunteers participated, where two groups were given single-stage infiltration and the other two had two-stage infiltrations. Depending upon the infiltration technique (one- or two-stage) and the use of TA, the patients were randomly divided into four groups. Local anesthesia (LA) was administered by infiltration into the mucobuccal fold of the maxillary central incisor, and the pain perceived during the infiltration in each group was recorded. The volunteers were recalled after 24 hours to assess the tenderness at the injection site. The volunteers were recalled 2 weeks after infiltration for the subsequent groups to assess the pain for this cross-over study. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was observed in the pain perceived when TA was used and when the infiltration was done in two stages. Regarding the pain at the site of injection after 24 hours, no significant difference was observed among the volunteers. CONCLUSION: Topical anesthesia was effective in reducing the pain of injection when compared to placebo. The pain of injection is further reduced with a two-stage infiltration technique after TA application. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Topical anesthesia can be used routinely before infiltration, and LA infiltration injections are less painful if administered in two stages.

Lidocaína para dor neuropática localizada / Lidocaine for localized neuropathic pain

O QUE É A DOR NEUROPÁTICA?: A dor neuropática é um tipo de dor crônica, ou seja, uma experiência sensorial desagradável que persiste por um período igual ou superior a três meses, com origem em lesões no sistema nervoso. COMO OS PACIENTES COM DOR NEUROPÁTICA SÃO TRATADOS NO SUS?: De acordo com o Protocolo Clínico e Diretrizes Terapêuticas (PCDT) da Dor Crônica vigente, publicado em 2012, para o tratamento da dor neuropática recomenda-se o uso de antidepressivos tricíclicos (que normalizam as funções do sistema nervoso central) e antiepiléticos (que diminuem a ação rápida e excessiva dos neurônios) como opções iniciais. A partir do momento no qual o paciente não responde à ação destes medicamentos, é indicado o uso de opióides (medicamentos que também atuam no sistema nervoso, com o objetivo específico do alívio da dor). MEDICAMENTO ANALISADO: LIDOCAÍNA: A Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Insumos Estratégicos em Saúde (SCTIE/MS) solicitou à Conitec incorporação do emplastro de lidocaína 5% para o tratamento da dor neuropática localizada, no âmbito do SUS. O emplastro de lidocaína 5% apresenta registro na Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (Anvisa) e atualmente é indicado para o tratamento da dor neuropática associada à infecção anterior por herpes zoster e para o tratamento da DNL. O medicamento exerce uma atividade anestésica no local em que é aplicado, protegendo a área afetada e bloqueando a geração e condução dos impulsos nervosos. PERSPECTIVA DO PACIENTE: As chamadas públicas para participar da Perspectiva do Paciente sobre os temas de dor neuropática e fibromialgia foram abertas de 13/01/2021 a 17/01/2021. As três chamadas públicas tiveram um total de 61 inscrições. A indicação dos representantes titular e suplente foi feita a partir de consenso entre o grupo de inscritos. RECOMENDAÇÃO INICIAL DA CONITEC: A Conitec recomendou inicialmente a não incorporação no SUS da lidocaína para o tratamento da dor neuropática localizada. Esse tema foi discutido durante a 97ª reunião ordinária da Comissão, realizada nos dias 5 e 6 de maio de 2021. Na ocasião, o Plenário considerou que a lidocaína não apresenta diferença significativa com relação à eficácia e segurança em comparação ao medicamento já disponível no SUS. O assunto esteve disponível na consulta pública nº 43, durante 20 dias, no período de 27/05/2021 a 15/06/2021, para receber contribuições da sociedade (opiniões, sugestões e críticas) sobre o tema. RESULTADO DA CONSULTA PÚBLICA: Foram recebidas 26 contribuições, sendo 12 de cunho técnico-científico e 14 sobre experiência ou opinião. A maior parte discordou da recomendação inicial da Conitec, de não incorporar a lidocaína para o tratamento da dor neuropática crônica localizada no SUS. As contribuições destacaram a falta de opção de tratamento para a dor neuropática localizada e experiências positivas com o uso da tecnologia. A empresa demandante apresentou novas avaliações, com foco na neuralgia pós-herpética. RECOMENDAÇÃO FINAL DA CONITEC: Durante a 99ª reunião ordinária da Conitec, realizada nos dias 30 de junho e 01 de julho de 2021, o Plenário recomendou por unanimidade a não incorporação da lidocaína para o tratamento da dor neuropática localizada no SUS. Os membros de Plenário entenderam que não houve argumentações que alterassem a análise apresentada no relatório preliminar, em que a tecnologia não demonstrou diferença significativa em eficácia e segurança quando comparado ao tratamento já disponível no SUS, com a gabapentina. DECISÃO FINAL: Com base na recomendação da Conitec, o secretário de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Insumos Estratégicos em Saúde do Ministério da Saúde, no uso de suas atribuições legais, decidiu pela não incorporação da lidocaína para o tratamento da dor neuropática localizada no âmbito do SUS.

Assessment of Drug Delivery Kinetics to Epidermal Targets In Vivo.

It has proven challenging to quantify 'drug input' from a formulation to the viable skin because the epidermal and dermal targets of topically applied drugs are difficult, if not impossible, to access in vivo. Defining the drug input function to the viable skin with a straightforward and practical experimental approach would enable a key component of dermal pharmacokinetics to be characterised. It has been hypothesised that measuring drug uptake into and clearance from the stratum corneum (SC) by tape-stripping allows estimation of a topical drug's input function into the viable tissue. This study aimed to test this idea by determining the input of nicotine and lidocaine into the viable skin, following the application of commercialised transdermal patches to healthy human volunteers. The known input rates of these delivery systems were used to validate and assess the results from the tape-stripping protocol. The drug input rates from in vivo tape-stripping agreed well with the claimed delivery rates of the patches. The experimental approach was then used to determine the input of lidocaine from a marketed cream, a typical topical product for which the amount of drug absorbed has not been well-characterised. A significantly higher delivery of lidocaine from the cream than from the patch was found. The different input rates between drugs and formulations in vivo were confirmed qualitatively and quantitatively in vitro in conventional diffusion cells using dermatomed abdominal pig skin.

Assessment of the technique of the anesthetic block of the Brachial Plexus by Supraclavicular approach in Sapajus libidinosus (SPIX, 1823).

BACKGROUND: The aim of study was to evaluate the efficacy of the supraclavicular brachial plexus block technique in Sapajus libidinosus. METHODS: Were used eight animals, which were sedated, anesthetized, kept under hypnosis, and submitted to plexus block using a neurolocalizer. The physiological parameters, the nociception and response threshold (mA), were evaluated before and after the block. The response to electrical stimulation and cutaneous sensitivity were evaluated. The groups were compared by the Tukey or Friedman test at 5%. RESULTS: The technique promoted blockage of the plexus, and movement of the thoracic limb in response to electrical stimulation decreased after 10 minutes. The applied milliampere increased after 5 minutes. The cutaneous sensitivity reflex decreased. The average time of return of spontaneous limb movement exceeded 50 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of 5mg/kg of lidocaine 2% promoted loss of cutaneous sensitivity and limb muscle relaxation during the evaluation period.

Cochlear Implantation Under Local Anesthesia With Conscious Sedation in the Elderly: First 100 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To report the outcomes on a large series of elderly patients who underwent cochlear implantation (CI) surgery under local anesthesia with conscious sedation (LA-CS). METHODS: Retrospective chart review on 100 consecutive elderly patients (> 65 years) who underwent CI with LA-CS at a tertiary care center between August 2013 and January 2020. An age-matched control group of 50 patients who underwent CI with general anesthesia (GA) are used for comparison. Outcomes measured included time in the operating room, time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and rate of adverse events. RESULTS: Cochlear implant surgery under LA-CS was successfully performed in 99 (99%) patients. One patient requiring conversion to GA intraoperatively. No patients in the LA-CS group experienced cardiopulmonary adverse events; however, three patients (6%) in the GA group experienced minor events including atrial fibrillation and/or demand ischemia. Overnight observation in the hospital due to postoperative medical concerns or prolonged wake-up from anesthesia was required in one patient (1%) from the LA-CS cohort and 12 patients (24%) from the GA cohort. Perioperative adverse events exclusive to the LA-CS group included severe intraoperative vertigo (8%), temporary facial nerve paresis (3%), and wound infection (1%). The average amount of time spent in the operating room was 37 minutes less for procedures performed under LA-CS compared to GA (P < .05). The average amount of time in recovery was similar for both groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Cochlear implant surgery under LA-CS offers many benefits and is a safe, feasible, and cost-effective alternative to GA when performed by experienced CI surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:E946-E951, 2021.

Fasciectomy under local anaesthetic and adrenaline for Dupuytren's contracture in a community setting in the UK with a cost analysis.

AIMS: In the UK, fasciectomy for Dupuytren's contracture is generally performed under general or regional anaesthetic, with an arm tourniquet and in a hospital setting. We have changed our practice to use local anaesthetic with adrenaline, no arm tourniquet, and perform the surgery in a community setting. We present the outcome of a consecutive series of 30 patients. METHODS: Prospective data were collected for 30 patients undergoing open fasciectomy on 36 digits (six having two digits affected), over a one-year period and under the care of two surgeons. In total, 10 ml to 20 ml volume of 1% lidocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline was used. A standard postoperative rehabilitation regime was used. Preoperative health scores, goniometer measurements of metacarpophalangeal (MCP), proximal interphalangeal (PIP) contractures, and Unité Rheumatologique des Affections de la Main (URAM) scores were measured pre- and postoperatively at six and 12 weeks. RESULTS: The mean preoperative contractures were 35.3° (0° to 90°) at the metacarpophalangeal joint (MCPJ), 32.5° (0° to 90°) at proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) (a combined deformity of 67.8°). The mean correction was 33.6° (0° to 90°) for the MCPJ and 18.2° (0° to 70°) for the PIPJ leading to a combined correction of 51.8°. There was a complete deformity correction in 21 fingers (59.5%) and partial correction in 14 digits (37.8%) with no correction in one finger. The mean residual deformities for the partial/uncorrected group were MCP 4.2° (0° to 30°), and PIP 26.1° (0° to 85°). For those achieving a full correction the mean preoperative contracture was less particularly at the PIP joint (15.45° (0° to 60°) vs 55.33° (0° to 90°)). Mean preoperative URAM scores were higher in the fully corrected group (17.4 (4 to 31) vs 14.0 (0 to 28)), but lower at three months post-surgery (0.5 (0 to 3) vs 4.40 (0 to 18)), with both groups showing improvements. Infections occurred in two patients (three digits) and both were successfully treated with oral antibiotics. No other complications were noted. The estimated cost of a fasciectomy under local anaesthetic in the community was £184.82 per patient. The estimated hospital theatre costs for a fasciectomy was £1,146.62 under general anaesthetic (GA), and £1,085.30 under an axillary block. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a fasciectomy performed under local anaesthetic with adrenaline and without an arm tourniquet and in a community setting is safe, and results in favourable outcomes regarding the degree of correction of contracture achieved, functional scores, and short-term complications. Local anaesthetic fasciectomy in a community setting achieves a saving of £961.80 for a GA and £900.48 for an axillary block per case. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(10):1354-1358.

[Effects of double-catheter epidural analgesia by lidocaine injection respectively on the delivery outcomes and maternal-infant complications for persistent posterior or lateral occipital position of protracted active phase].

Objective: To evaluate the effect of dual-tube epidural segmental injection of lidocaine analgesia on the delivery outcome and maternal and infant complications of persistent posterior occipital position postpartum or lateral occipital position postpartum patients with protracted active phase. Methods: The full and single-term primiparas (n=216, 37 to 42 weeks gestation, 22 to 35 years) diagnosed as persistent posterior or lateral occipital position during the active period were selected from the Department of Obstetrics of Qingdao Municipal Hospital from January 2015 to October 2019. The subjects were randomly assigned into two groups: double-tube epidural block group (n=108) and single-tube epidural block group (n=108), 1% lidocaine was used for epidural analgesia respectively under ultrasound guidance. Senior midwife or obstetricians implement new partogram, and guide women to perform position management, and push or rotate the fetal head in a timely manner. Observation indicators: general condition, the use of non-pharmacological analgesic measures, analgesia related conditions and pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score, delivery-related indicator, cesarean section indication, anesthesia-related indicator, maternal and child complications. Results: (1) General condition: the age, weight, height, gestational age, the ratio of persistent lateral or posterior occipital position, cephalic score, and neonatal birth weight between the two groups of women were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). (2) The use of non-pharmacological analgesic measures: the women's Lamaze breathing method, Doula delivery companionship, percutaneous electrical stimulation, and other measures between two groups were compared, and there were not significant differences (all P>0.05). (3) Analgesia related conditions and VAS scores of women undergoing vaginal delivery: compared with the single-tube epidural block group (n=40), the second-partum time of the women in the double-tube epidural block group (n=59) was significantly shortened [(124±44) vs (86±33) minutes, P<0.01]; after 30 minutes of analgesia (4.4±0.5 vs 0.9±0.5, P<0.01), during forced labor in the second stage of labor (5.7±0.6 vs 1.3±0.4, P<0.01), the VAS scores of pain were also significantly reduced (P<0.01). (4) Labor-related indicators: compared with the single-tube epidural block group, the natural delivery rate (21.3% vs 49.1%) and the delivery experience satisfaction rate (51.9% vs 98.1%) of women in the double-tube epidural block group were significantly increased (all P<0.01), cesarean section rate (63.0% vs 45.4%), instrument assisted rate (15.7% vs 5.6%) decreased significantly (all P<0.05). (5) Cesarean section indications: compared with the single-tube epidural block group, the cesarean section rate caused by prolonged labor or protracted active phase of women in the double-tube epidural block group was significantly reduced (38.0% vs 22.2%； P<0.05), and the fetal distress, intrauterine infection, and social factors caused by cesarean section between the two groups were compared, while the differences were not statistically significant (all P>0.05).(6) Anesthesia related indexes: the block planes of the maternal upper tube administration in the double-tube epidural block group were mostly T7, T8, T9-L2 and L3,While,the block planes in the single-tube epidural block group were mostly T10, T11-S1, S2, S3, and the modified Bromage score were all 0. (7) Maternal and child complications: compared with the single-tube epidural block group, the postpartum hemorrhage rate (18.5% vs 7.4%), the perineal lateral cut rate (20.4% vs 5.6%), the neonatal asphyxia rate (12.0% vs 3.7%), ICU rate of transferred neonates (13.9% vs 4.6%) in the double-tube epidural block group were significantly reduced (all P<0.05). Soft birth canal injury rate, puerperal disease rate and neonatal birth rate between two groups were compared, and there were not statistically significant differences (all P>0.05). Conclusion: Dual-tube epidural segmental injection of lidocaine analgesia could increase the natural delivery rate of women with posterior occipital or lateral occipital position with active stagnation, reduce the rate of cesarean section and the rate of transvaginal instruments, and reduce the complications of mother and child.

Uso de dexmedetomidina comparado con lidocaína y fentanilo para destete de ventilación mecánica en pacientes con COVID-19 / Use of dexmedetomidine compared with lidocaine and fentanyl for weaning from mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients

INTRODUCCIÓN: Uno de los mayores intereses en el campo de la salud y en torno a la pandemia de COVID-19 es el desarrollo de estrategias para reducir la transmisión de la infección por SARS-CoV-2, incluyendo la protección de los trabajadores de salud, grupo de riesgo frente a la infección por este virus (Ng et al. 2020). La extubación es un procedimiento generador de aerosoles debido a la respuesta refleja del sistema respiratorio durante esta actividad, manifestada como la presencia de tos en algunos pacientes a los que se les realiza destete del ventilador mecánico (Brewster et al. 2020). Realizar la extubación requiere la proximidad de los trabajadores de salud con los pacientes, los cuales, incluyendo los casos de pacientes con COVID-19, suelen seguir siendo infecciosos al momento de la extubación (Brewster et al. 2020, Zhou et al. 2020, Ng et al. 2020), por lo que realizar esta actividad incrementaría la probabilidad de transmisión de esta infección viral. Ante ello, diversos grupos relacionados a la anestesiología señalan como útil el empleo de medicación que reduzca la generación de tos durante la extubación, que, junto a otras medidas de protección, disminuiría la probabilidad de transmisión de la infección por SARS-CoV-2 (Brown et al. 2020, Cook et al. 2020, D'Silva et al. 2020, Tan Li et al 2020). En EsSalud, se dispone de lidocaína y fentanilo, medicamentos descritos en la literatura científica como útiles para reducir la tos en pacientes a los que se les realizará el destete de la ventilación mecánica. Sin embargo, algunos especialistas argumentan que estos agentes sedantes podrían causar depresión respiratoria, retraso en el despertar e incrementar el riesgo de delirio si son administrados por periodos largos. Adicionalmente, los especialistas argumentan que dexmedetomidina es una alternativa que ofrecería la ventaja un despertar más rápido y una menor incidencia de delirio, además de reducir la incidencia de tos durante la extubación, estos efectos facilitarían la extubación del paciente y disminuiría la transmisión del SARS-CoV-2 al equipo médico tratante en la UCI. En ese sentido, el presente documento tuvo como objetivo evaluar la eficacia y seguridad de dexmedetomidina comparado con lidocaína y fentanilo para destete de ventilación mecánica invasiva en pacientes con COVID-19. TECNOLOGÍA DE INTERÉS: Dexmedetomidina es un agonista selectivo de los receptores alfa-2 con efectos ansiolíticos, sedantes (mediados por la inhibición del locus coeruleus, el núcleo noradrenérgico predominante, situado en el tronco cerebral) y analgésicos, produciendo además un efecto simpaticolítico al disminuir la liberación de noradrenalina en las terminaciones nerviosas simpáticas. METODOLOGÍA: Se buscó la evidencia disponible al 24 de agosto del 2020 en las siguientes bases de datos bibliográficas: PubMed, The Cochrane Library y LILACS. Asimismo, se realizó una búsqueda en sitios web pertenecientes a grupos que realizan evaluaciones de tecnologías sanitarias y guías de práctica clínica, incluyendo: The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWiG), Haute Authorité de Santé (HAS), Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) y el portal BRISA (Base Regional de Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud de las Américas). Adicionalmente, se realizó búsqueda de evidencia en sitios web de organizaciones internacionales en anestesiología o de instituciones que estén desarrollando protocolos para el manejo de pacientes con COVID-19. RESULTADOS: En la búsqueda de la evidencia no se identificaron estudios que evalúen la eficacia y seguridad de dexmedetomidina, comparado con lidocaína y fentanilo, para el destete de ventilación mecánica invasiva, en pacientes con COVID-19. Sin embargo, se identificaron: tres GPC o consensos de expertos elaborados por la Safe Airway Society, Alfred ICU y la Difficult Airway Society e instituciones colaboradoras; una RS con metaanálisis en red realizada por Tung et al., así como dos ensayos clínicos controlados, aleatorizados (ECA) que no fueron incluidos en la RS. Se debe precisar que esta RS y estos ECA no fueron realizados en la población de interés del presente reporte breve (pacientes con COVID-19); por lo que fueron incluidos como evidencia indirecta. CONCLUSIONES: En el presente documento, se evaluó la mejor evidencia científica disponible hasta la actualidad sobre eficacia y seguridad de dexmedetomidina comparado con lidocaína y fentanilo para destete de ventilación mecánica en pacientes con COVID-19. Se encontraron: tres GPC o consensos de expertos, una RS y dos ECA. La RS y los ECA incluidos aportan al reporte breve como evidencia indirecta; al no haber sido desarrollados en pacientes con COVID-19. Las guías de la Safe Airway Society (SAS), Alfred ICU y de la Difficult Airway Society (DAS) e instituciones colaboradoras que fueron elaboradas para dar recomendaciones para el proceso de extubación en pacientes con COVID-19, hacen mención a dexmedetomidina (SAS, Alfred ICU), opioides como el fentanilo (SAS y DAS) y la lidocaína (SAS, DAS) para reducir la tos durante el proceso de extubación, aunque precisan la ausencia de evidencia sobre el uso de este medicamentos en pacientes con COVID-19, señalando que se debe evaluar el balance riesgo-beneficio para el uso de los mismos. En general, las recomendaciones descritas en estos documentos proceden de consensos por opinión de expertos, y no establecen una preferencia de un medicamento sobre los otros. En cuanto a los resultados de la RS con MA en red de Tung et al., y los ECA de Kothari et al., y Hu et al., no han podido encontrar evidencia que apoye la hipótesis que el efecto de la dexmedetomidina sea superior al de lidocaína y fentanilo sobre el manejo de la tos (esto es, no se encontraron diferencias entre estos). Estos resultados deben ser interpretados con cautela debido a que la población de estudio de los mismos no son pacientes COVID-19. No obstante, la información que proporcionan puede ayudar a tener una idea del efecto que se podría esperar con el uso de cada uno de los medicamentos mencionados, tanto en eficacia como en seguridad. Al respecto, frente a una ausencia de diferencia entre dexmedetomidina en comparación con lidocaína y fentanilo, se tiene evidencia que la primera tiene un mayor riesgo de bradicardia que los dos últimos. Esto se condice con la literatura previa acerca de dicho medicamento (dexmedetomidina), donde además se describe que los adultos mayores y personas con comorbilidades presentan una mayor proporción de eventos de bradicardia atribuibles al uso de dexmedetomidina lo que, siendo que estos grupos poblacionales son los más afectados por COVID-19, sería esperable una mayor presencia de bradicardia como evento adverso en pacientes con COVID-19 que reciben dexmedetomidina, lo que llama a la precaución cuando se considera el uso de esta tecnología en estos pacientes. De este modo, la mejor evidencia disponible a la fecha (24 de agosto del 2020), procedente de tres GPC o consensos de expertos, una RS con metaanálisis en red y dos ECA, apunta a que el balance de riesgo-beneficio del empleo de dexmedetomidina comparado con el uso de lidocaína o fentanilo, en la reducción de la tos durante el destete de ventilación mecánica en pacientes con COVID-19 es de alta incertidumbre, especialmente por el hecho que la dexmedetomidina está asociada a un mayor riesgo de reacciones adversas frente a los otros dos medicamentos, especialmente en lo referente a bradicardia. Por ello, con este cuerpo de evidencia, el IETSI no ha encontrado sustento técnico que pueda apoyar una recomendación a favor del uso de dexmedetomidina por sobre el de lidocaína o fentanilo en pacientes COVID-19 para reducir la tos al momento de la extubación.

Pupil expansion device use and operative outcomes with topical dilation vs intracameral epinephrine in resident-performed cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the use of topical dilation drops vs topical drops with the addition of intracameral epinephrine in resident-performed cataract surgery and the effects on pupil expansion device (PED) use, surgical costs, and surgical times. SETTING: Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: Resident-performed primary cataract surgical cases using topical dilation drops only or drops with the addition of intracameral epinephrine were analyzed for PED use, surgical time, and costs in all patients and in patients with a history of tamsulosin use. RESULTS: In the topical group, PEDs were used in 31.1% of cases compared with 13.5% of cases in the intracameral group (P < .0001). History of tamsulosin use was noted in about one third of cases in both groups. For patients with a history of tamsulosin use, PED use decreased from 52.7% in the topical cases to 17.9% in the intracameral group (P < .0001). Surgical times were on average 7.1 minutes slower with PED use than without PED use. There was a medication savings of $50.44 USD per case in the intracameral group compared with the topical group. Factoring in the $100 to $130 USD per PED used, total surgical costs were $19 267 USD less in the intracameral group over 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Intracameral epinephrine with lidocaine decreases the need for PED use during cataract surgery, lowers intraoperative costs, and improves efficiency compared with topical dilation drops alone.

Assessment of craniofacial hyperhidrosis and flushing by sphenopalatine blockade - a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Craniofacial hyperhidrosis (CFH) and flushing express nervous system autonomic dysfunction. Available reference treatments lack good compliance. The study objective was to investigate variations of CFH/flushing after two methods of sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) blockade. METHODOLOGY: CFH patients (n=25) were randomized in a ratio of 1:3 in two groups; 1) endoscopic application of topical lidocaine over SPG (TL; n=7); 2) endoscopic injection of lidocaine in the SPG (IL; n=18). CFH, flushing, rhinorrhoea, nasal obstruction, and smell detection were scored by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Nasal endoscopy, acoustic rhinometry, mucociliary transport test, smell/taste test, Schirmer test, Short Form-12, Chronic Skin Diseases Questionnaire, and Skin Satisfaction Questionnaire were also performed at visit 0, 1, 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: At baseline, groups reported similar CFH VAS (TL: 89.3 plus or minus 17.5mm; IL: 85.7 plus or minus 22.1mm) or flushing VAS (TL: 52.7 plus or minus 30mm; IL: 59 plus or minus 33.8mm). After 6 months, the least squares mean of CFH VAS in IL was -38.1 (-47.3 to -28.9) compared to TL 1.9 (-12.2 to 15.9). However, flushing VAS did not improve. Any rhinological measure nor quality of life test showed significant changes. One patient presented controlled epistaxis intraoperatively during IL. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study shows the sphenopalatine blockade injection as a safe procedure. Patients with CFH or flushing had significant improvement after lidocaine injection which lasted 6 months. Due to the small sample and the lack of objective measures more studies are needed.

Neck Surgery with Hypnosis: An Evaluation Based Upon Patient's Self Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Surgery with hypnosis avoids the use of general anesthesia (GA). It also shortens hospitalization and promotes outpatient surgery. The objective of this study has been to assess the satisfaction of operated patients. No previous study has focused on patient satisfaction in a prospective design. METHODS: In this prospective, non-randomized, observational study, all patients operated with hypnosis between 2009 and 2017 in the Ear, Nose, and Throat department of a tertiary care hospital were selected. All patients were asked to fill a questionnaire based on a previously validated questionnaire incremented with complementary questions. Questionnaires were completed immediately after surgery for 31 patients and after 6 months for 20 patients. Global Satisfaction Index (GSI) was self-assessed on a scale ranging from 1 to 10. Patients were asked; whether they felt comfortable during the operation, whether hypnosis helped them, whether the experience matched their expectations, whether they would revisit or recommend it to someone else and whether they considered to have been sufficiently informed before the procedure. The data was analyzed using a linear regression model with P < .05 considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: During the inclusion period, no patient required conversion to GA. A total of 48 questionnaires were evaluated. The median of the GSI was 8/10. GSI significantly correlated with patient comfort (P < 0.0001) and quality of preoperative information (P = .002). The percentage of patients who found hypnosis helpful correlated with the duration of surgery (P = .04). The probability for a patient to consider hypnosis as an experience matching their expectation increased with surgical team experience OR 0.55 (0.3-0.9). CONCLUSION: This study reveals that patients' global satisfaction after hypnosis is high. This is significantly related to the quality of preoperative information and to the experience of the surgical team. It also suggests that patients are more likely to benefit from hypnosis if the surgery is longer.

Periprostatic nerve block alone versus combined with perineal pudendal nerve block or intrarectal local anesthesia during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety and cost of combinations of perineal pudendal nerve block + periprostatic nerve block and intrarectal local anesthesia + periprostatic nerve block with the standard technique (periprostatic nerve block). METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized prospective controlled trial. Patients with elevated serum prostate-specific antigen values (prostate-specific antigen ≥4 ng/mL) and/or abnormal digital rectal examination findings were included in the study. Patients with anorectal diseases, chronic prostatitis, previous history of prostate biopsy and anorectal surgery were excluded from the study. A total of 148 patients (group 1 [periprostatic nerve block], n = 48; group 2 [intrarectal local anesthesia + periprostatic nerve block], n = 51; group 3 [perineal pudendal nerve block + periprostatic nerve block], n = 49) were included in the final analysis. Pain during insertion and manipulation of the transrectal ultrasound probe was recorded as visual analog scale 1, pain during penetration of the biopsy needle into the prostate and sampling was recorded as visual analog scale 2, and pain during the entire procedure recorded as visual analog scale 3. RESULTS: The mean visual analog scale 1 score was significantly lower in group 3, when compared with group 1 and group 2 (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the mean visual analog scale 2 score. The mean visual analog scale 3 score was significantly lower in group 3 when compared with other groups (P < 0.001). The total cost for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in the intrarectal local anesthesia + periprostatic nerve block group was significantly higher than the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of perineal pudendal nerve block and periprostatic nerve block provides more effective pain control than intrarectal local anesthesia plus periprostatic nerve block and periprostatic nerve block alone, with similar complication rates and without increasing cost.

On-table extubation in neonates undergoing anoplasty: an experience of anesthetic management on the concept of fast-tracking anesthesia: A pilot study.

Fast-track anesthesia (FTA) is difficult to achieve in neonates due to immature organ function and high rates of perioperative events. As a high-risk population, neonates require prolonged postoperative mechanical ventilation, which may lead to contradictions in cases where neonatal intensive care unit resources and ventilator facilities are limited. The choice of anesthesia strategy and anesthetic can help achieve rapid postoperative rehabilitation and save hospitalization costs. The authors describe their experience with maintaining spontaneous breathing in neonates undergoing anoplasty without opioids or muscle relaxants.This retrospective chart review included neonates who underwent anoplasty in the authors' institution. Twelve neonates who underwent the procedure with atomized 5% lidocaine topical anesthesia around the glottis, combined with sevoflurane sedation and caudal anesthesia facilitating tracheal intubation without opioid and muscle relaxant comprised the FTA group. Ten neonates who underwent the intervention with routine anesthesia techniques in the same period comprised the control group (group C).The surgical success rate in the FTA group was 91.7%. There were no severe complications related to lidocaine administered around the glottis. Extubation time was significantly shorter in the FTA group than in group C (4 [2.5, 5.2] vs 81.5 [60.6, 96.8], respectively; P < .01). The duration of stay in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) was longer in group C than in the FTA group (2 [2.0, 2.6] vs 1 [0.9, 2.0], respectively; P = .006,). A statistically significant lower rate of extubation-cough was noted after endotracheal tube removal in the FTA group compared with group C (18% vs 90%, respectively; P < .001). There was no difference in the duration of anesthesia or hospitalization costs between the 2 groups. No neonates required re-intubation after extubation.On-table extubation via 5% atomized lidocaine topical anesthesia around the glottis for tracheal intubation combined with sevoflurane sedation and caudal anesthesia without opioid and muscle relaxant was feasible in neonates undergoing anoplasty. This reduced time to extubation, length of SICU stay and saved resources. A similar trend in cost savings was also found; nevertheless, more studies are needed to confirm these results.

Preclinical safety assessment of antipyrine combined with lidocaine hydrochloride as ear drops.

This study was designed to assess the preclinical toxicity of antipyrine combined with lidocaine hydrochloride ear drops (ALED) and support the clinical trials of ALED in clinical settings in China. All the experiments including acute toxicity in rodents, skin sensitization toxicity in guinea pigs, skin irritation toxicity in rabbits and chronic toxicity in rats were performed according to China Food and Drug Administration guidelines. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of ALED administration for mice and rats was over (400 g antipyrine plus 100 g lidocaine hydrochloride)/kg and (240 g andtipyrine plus 60 g lidocaine hydrochloride)/kg, respectively. No obvious skin sensitization toxicity and skin irritation toxicity were observed. The main changes concentrated in chronic toxicity study in rats. For the chronic toxicity, rats were administrated once a day for 28 consecutive days, and a 14-day recovery period was followed. The side effects of ALED included decreased dietary intake in male rats, increased proportion of reticulocytes, decreased or even inversed granulocyte:erythrocyte ratio, fluctuated alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase, and slightly increased relative weight of liver. Conclusively, blood system (especially erythrocyte system) and digestive system, including liver and gastrointestinal tract, might be the toxic targets of ALED.

Assessment of surgeon performed caudal block for anorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The surgical anorectal diseases are common and distressful pathologies and their management mostly needs surgical intervention. Caudal anesthesia is effective in doing surgical procedures whenever the surgical area is mainly innervated by the sacral and lower lumbar nerve roots. It is used to give the local anesthesia by surgeons, in the present study the surgeon is the person who also gives the caudal anesthesia. METHODS: 202 patients (118 males vs. 84 females) were enrolled in this study with different surgical anorectal diseases. All of them were planned to be treated surgically under the effect of caudal anesthesia that was given by injection 10 ml of 2% lidocaine through sacral hiatus. All caudal anesthesia attempts were performed by the author surgeon. RESULTS: The total success rate of caudal anesthesia performed by the surgeon was 72.2% (divided into ≅67.7% in the first year of the study, ≅72 in the second and ≅76.4% in the third year). The failed attempts were in 18.81% males vs. 8.91 females. The morbidity rate was 0.99% and the mortality rate was zero. CONCLUSIONS: The surgeon can perform the caudal anesthesia effectively and safely. This success improved with gaining more experience. This can help partly in solving the shortage in no. of anesthetists in some developing countries.

Latest Advances in Wide Awake Hand Surgery.

Injection of tumescent local anesthesia should no longer be painful. WALANT anesthesia, strong sutures, a slightly bulky repair, intraoperative testing of active movement, and judicious venting of the A2 and A4 pulleys improve results in flexor tendon repair. WALANT K wire finger fracture reduction permits intraoperative testing of K wire stability with active movement to facilitate early protected movement at 3 to 5 days after surgery. WALANT can decrease costs and garbage production while increasing accessibility and affordability. Several surgeons have found no infection difference when the K wires are inserted with full operating room sterility versus field sterility.

Impact of Wide-Awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet on Departmental Settings, Cost, Patient and Surgeon Satisfaction, and Beyond.

This article reviews the impact of wide-awake hand surgery without tourniquet on departmental settings and savings on patients' medical cost, and efficiency of fellowship training and practice of junior hand surgeons in 3 units in 3 countries. The medical cost of the commonly performed procedures is decreased remarkably with this approach in the 3 units. Hand surgery fellowship training and practice of junior surgeons are benefited from this approach in 2 units in Turkey and Switzerland. Overall, this approach improves the surgeons' and patients' quality of life and its application is expanding to almost all procedures of hand surgery.

Practice in Wide-Awake Hand Surgery: Differences Between United Kingdom and Cyprus.

The implementation of the wide-awake local anesthetic no tourniquet (WALANT) approach to surgical procedures in Cyprus has led to significant cost savings. In the United Kingdom, the implementation of WALANT has led to shorter waiting times for hand surgical procedures, cost savings for the National Health Service, and high patient satisfaction rates. In both countries, patient education is a prerequisite for WALANT surgery. It increases the satisfaction rate among patients and enhances the patient-surgeon relationship. Patients need to know they can participate actively in a procedure, because a patient moving the hand during a procedure can improve the outcome.