Pain management after open colorectal surgery: An update of the systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Open colectomy is still performed around the world and associated with significant postoperative pain. OBJECTIVES: Unpublished recommendations based on a systematic review were proposed by the PROcedure SPECific postoperative pain managemenT (PROSPECT) group in 2016. We aimed to update these recommendations by evaluating the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after open colectomy according to the PROSPECT methodology. DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES: A systematic review using the PROSPECT methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in the English language from 2016 to 2022 assessing postoperative pain after open colectomy using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified. The primary outcome included postoperative pain scores. RESULTS: The previous 2016 review included data from 93 studies. Out of 842 additional eligible studies identified, 13 new studies were finally retrieved for analysis. Intra-operative and postoperative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, epidural analgesia. When epidural is not feasible, intravenous lidocaine or bilateral TAP block or postoperative continuous pre-peritoneal infusion are recommended. Intra-operative and postoperative Cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 specific-inhibitors or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended for colonic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The analgesic regimen for open colectomy should include intra-operative paracetamol and COX-2 specific inhibitors or NSAIDs (restricted to colonic surgery), epidural and continued postoperatively with opioids used as rescue analgesics. If epidural is not feasible, bilateral TAP block or IV lidocaine are recommended. Safety issues should be highlighted: local anaesthetics should not be administered by two different routes at the same time. Because of the risk of toxicity, careful dosing and monitoring are necessary.

Assessment of chest compression interruptions during advanced cardiac life support.

AIM: To identify potentially avoidable factors responsible for chest compression interruptions and to evaluate the influence of chest compression fraction on achieving return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital discharge. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, each resuscitation managed by mobile medical teams from August 1st, 2016, to August 1st, 2018 was video recorded using a body-mounted GoPro camera. The duration of all chest compression interruptions was recorded and chest compression fraction was calculated. All actions causing an interruption of at least 10 s were analyzed. RESULTS: Two hundred and six resuscitations of both in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients were analysed. In total 1867 chest compression interruptions were identified. Of these, 623 were longer than 10 s in which a total of 794 actions were performed. In 4.3% of the registered pauses, cardiopulmonary resuscitation was interrupted for more than 60 s. The most performed actions during prolonged interruptions were rhythm/pulse checks (51.6%), installation/use of mechanical chest compression devices (11.1%), cardiopulmonary resuscitation provider switches (6.7%) and ETT placements (6.2%). No statistically significant relationship was found between chest compression fraction and return of spontaneous circulation or survival. CONCLUSION: The majority of chest compression interruptions during resuscitation were caused by prolonged rhythm checks, cardiopulmonary resuscitation provider switches, incorrect use of mechanical chest compression devices and ETT placement. No association was found between chest compression fraction and return of spontaneous circulation, nor an influence on survival. This was presumably caused by the high baseline chest compression fraction of >86%.

Impact of video-recording on patient outcome and data collection in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.

BACKGROUND: Most research on out-of-hospital resuscitation relies on data collection from medical records. However, the data in medical records are often inaccurate. OBJECTIVE: To compare the data registration of the medical record with the data from the video recorded resuscitation and study the impact of video recording during resuscitation on the outcome. METHODS: Out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was video recorded using a body-mounted camera. Video recordings were independently reviewed and compared with the data of the medical record. The presence of bystander CPR and witnessed arrest, the initial rhythm, total number of defibrillations, adrenaline dosage and the total duration of CPR were studied. Using the medical records, CPR outcomes were compared for the periods prior to, during and after video recording. RESULTS: In total, 129 resuscitations were analysed. Of the six parameters, only the number of defibrillations was not significantly different in the medical record compared to the video recordings. The total duration of CPR (69.0%) and the total dose of adrenaline administered (63.6%) were the most incorrectly recorded, followed by the number of defibrillations (34.0%), witnessed arrest (31.0%), bystander CPR (24.0%) and initial rhythm (7%). No statistically significant difference was found comparing the outcomes (ROSC, 24 h and 1 month survival) of the periods before, during and after video recording. CONCLUSION: We detected a high number of discrepancies between the medical record and the data from the video recorded resuscitation. No significant effect of video-recording on patient outcome was found.