Use of a smartphone platform for temporomandibular joint arthroscopy.

Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthroscopy, a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure involving the introduction of a small-calibre optical scope into the joint compartments for the treatment of internal derangement, has been gaining prominence and is now being recommended as the first therapeutic option due to the good results obtained and minimal invasiveness. However, the technical difficulty, high cost, need for specific instruments, and video tower system remain limiting factors for the implementation of TMJ arthroscopy by practicing professionals. The objective of this study was to examine the possibility of using a smartphone optical adaptation platform in TMJ arthroscopy. Ten qualified examiners with different levels of expertise in TMJ arthroscopy located four points of interest in the upper TMJ compartment of a validated realistic simulator and assessed the resolution of the images obtained and ergonomics of the smartphone platform for each point of interest, assigning a score of 0-2 (0 = poor, 1 = intermediate, and 2 = good performance in comparison to the video tower). For image quality, 77.5% of scores were 'good', while 22.5% were 'intermediate'. For ergonomics, 62.5% of scores were 'good' and 37.5% were 'intermediate'. In conclusion, the platform appears to be safe for TMJ arthroscopy in humans.

Validation of severity scoring systems SAPS II and APACHE II in a single-center population.

OBJECTIVE: To validate two severity scoring systems, the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II), in a single-center ICU population. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective data collection in a two four-bed multidisciplinary ICUs of a teaching hospital. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected in ICU over 4 years on 1,721 consecutively admitted patients (aged 18 years or older, no transferrals, ICU stay at least 24 h) regarding SAPS II, APACHE II, predicted hospital mortality, and survival upon hospital discharge. RESULTS: At the predicted risk of 0.5, sensitivity was 39.4 % for SAPS II and 31.6 % for APACHE II, specificity 95.6 % and 97.2 %, and correct classification rate 85.6 % and 85.5 %, respectively. The area under the ROC curve was higher than 0.8 for both models. The goodness-of-fit statistic showed no significant difference between observed and predicted hospital mortality (H = 7.62 for SAPS II, H = 3.87 for APACHE II; and C = 9.32 and C = 5.05, respectively). Observed hospital mortality of patients with risk of death higher than 60 % was overpredicted by SAPS II and underpredicted by APACHE II. The observed hospital mortality was significantly higher than that predicted by the models in medical patients and in those admitted from the ward. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates both SAPS II and APACHE II scores in an ICU population comprised mainly of surgical patients. The type of ICU admission and the location in the hospital before ICU admission influence the predictive ability of the models.

Incident reporting in anesthesia: misidentification of propofol concentrations due to similarities in drug packaging.

We report three cases of misidentification of propofol concentrations due to similarities in drug packaging, which were identified by the incident reporting system. Incident reporting is an approach used to assess the incidence of adverse and potentially adverse events, established to manage the contributing factors and to develop appropriate strategies to prevent errors in anesthesia. Inadvertently, 2% propofol was administered instead of 1%, causing overdosage and prolonged anesthesia in two consecutive patients in the same operating room. The third case was a near-miss that occurred in another operating room of the hospital: a syringe containing 2% propofol instead of 1% was prepared by the nurse, but the anesthesiologist checked the concentration before the induction of anesthesia. The errors occurred due to the presence of similar propofol packaging in the operating rooms. They were the result of both human error because the anesthesia personnel forgot to check the propofol concentration, and system failure, due to the color code of the packaging. In our experience, incident reporting detected the recurrence of drug related errors. Therefore, a preventive strategy was put in place by eliminating 2% propofol packaging from the operating rooms. This paper highlights the need for a cultural shift in the way we collect information on incidents, and it is an example of effective improvement to prevent drug error by reducing the complexity of the system.

[Laryngeal mask vs tracheal intubation during mechanical ventilation in pediatric anesthesia]. / Maschera laringea vs tubo tracheale in ventilazione meccanica in anestesia pediatrica.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the parameters for mechanical respiration in pediatric patients undergoing controlled ventilation with a laryngeal mask (LM) and an uncuffed orotracheal tube. METHODS: The study examined 100 ASA 1 patients undergoing general anesthesia with myoresolution and mechanical ventilation using a Servo Ventilator 900 (constant flow, 25% insufflation, 10% teleinspiratory pause, tidal volume 10 ml/kg). All patients were divided into 2 groups matched for age and weight. An uncuffed orotracheal tube was used in one group (Group T) and a laryngeal mask (LM) in the other (Group M). The following parameters were measured: peak and pause pressure in the respiratory passage (Paw), total inspiratory resistance (R tot), compliance (C) and air loss expressed as a fraction of inspired volume (Vi-Ve/Vi). The statistical analysis of results was performed using Student's "t"-test and the level of significance was p < 0.05. RESULTS: Peak pressures were comparable in the two groups and were lower than the pressure needed to open the lower esophageal sphincter. These values could be further reduced by the extension of insufflation time achieved by abolishing the teleinspiratory pause included in the study to measure air resistances and compliance. Air losses were also similar in both groups, being respectively 13 and 11%. This means that environmental pollution using LM was not greater than with the uncuffed tube and confirms that, even with the latter, the protection of the airways cannot be regarded as absolute. Total inspiratory resistances were respectively 16.1 cm H2O/l/sec in group T and 15.1 cm H2O/l/sec in group M. This occurred in spite of the fact that the latter showed an in vitro capacity to oppose lower resistances compared to the corresponding tubes given that it was shorter with a larger diameter. Studies using the mechanical model did not include the laryngeal mask--larynx connection which may cause increased resistance owing to the variable position of the epiglottis, although this cannot be identified clinically. CONCLUSIONS: The laryngeal mask allows mechanical ventilation with low pressure in the respiratory passage and reduced air losses compared to the uncuffed tracheal tube. The risk of gastroesophageal insufflation is therefore minimal and artificial ventilation is reliable, if correctly performed. Lower levels of inspiratory resistance might be an advantage in spontaneous breathing owing to the consequent reduction of respiratory effort, but they do not appear to be significantly lower than with the tracheal tube.