Comparison of Dynamic Measures in Intraoperative Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy of Patients with Morbid Obesity Undergoing Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity increases the risk of morbidity and mortality during surgical procedures. Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) is a new concept for perioperative fluid management that has been shown to improve patient prognosis. This study aimed to investigate the role of the Pleth Variability Index (PVI), systolic pressure variation (SPV), and pulse pressure variation (PPV) in maintaining tissue perfusion and renal function during GDFT management in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred ten patients were enrolled in our prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Demographic data, hemodynamic parameters, biochemical parameters, the amount of crystalloid and colloid fluid administered intraoperatively, and the technique of goal-directed fluid management used were recorded. Patients were randomly divided into three groups: PVI (n = 70), PPV (n = 70), and SPV (n = 70), according to the technique of goal-directed fluid management. Postoperative nausea and vomiting, time of return of bowel movement, and hospital stay duration were recorded. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the number of crystalloids administered in all three groups. However, the amount of colloid administered was statistically significantly lower in the SPV group than in the PVI group, and there was no significant difference in the other groups. Statistically, there was no significant difference between the groups in plasma lactate, blood urea, and creatinine levels. CONCLUSION: In LSG, dynamic measurement techniques such as PVI, SPV, and PPV can be used in patients with morbid obesity without causing intraoperative and postoperative complications. PVI may be preferred over other invasive methods because it is noninvasive.

The Impact of CoronaVac Vaccination on 28-day Mortality Rate of Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 in Türkiye.

Background: Vaccines against coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) have been effective in preventing symptomatic diseases, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. However, data regarding the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19 remains unclear. Aims: To determine the vaccination status and investigate the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine on the 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Study Design: Multicenter prospective observational clinical study. Methods: This study was conducted in 60 hospitals with ICUs managing critically ill patients with COVID-19. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU were included. The present study had two phases. The first phase was designed as a one-day point prevalence study, and demographic and clinical findings were evaluated. In the second phase, the 28-day mortality was evaluated. Results: As of August 11, 2021, 921 patients were enrolled in the study. The mean age of the patients was 65.42 ± 16.74 years, and 48.6% (n = 448) were female. Among the critically ill patients with COVID-19, 52.6% (n = 484) were unvaccinated, 7.7% (n = 71) were incompletely vaccinated, and 39.8% (n = 366) were fully vaccinated. A subgroup analysis of 817 patients who were unvaccinated (n = 484) or who had received two doses of the CoronaVac vaccine (n = 333) was performed. The 28-day mortality rate was 56.8% (n = 275) and 57.4% (n = 191) in the unvaccinated and two-dose CoronaVac groups, respectively. The 28-day mortality was associated with age, hypertension, the number of comorbidities, type of respiratory support, and APACHE II and sequential organ failure assessment scores (p < 0.05). The odds ratio for the 28-day mortality among those who had received two doses of CoronaVac was 0.591 (95% confidence interval: 0.413-0.848) (p = 0.004). Conclusion: Vaccination with at least two doses of CoronaVac within six months significantly decreased mortality in vaccinated patients than in unvaccinated patients.

Comparison of Intraabdominal and Trocar Site Local Anaesthetic Infiltration on Postoperative Analgesia After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of local anaesthetic infiltration to trocar wounds and intraperitoneally on postoperative pain as a part of a multimodal analgesia method after laparoscopic cholecystectomies. METHODS: The study was performed on 90 ASA I-III patients aged between 20 and 70 years who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. All patients had the same general anaesthesia drug regimen. Patients were randomized into three groups by a closed envelope method: group I (n=30), trocar site local anaesthetic infiltration (20 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine); group II (n=30), intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation (20 mL of 0.5%) and group III (n=30), saline infiltration both trocar sites and intraperitoneally. Postoperative i.v. patient controlled analgesia was initiated for 24 h. In total, 4 mg of i.v. ondansetron was administered to all patients. Visual analogue scale (VAS), nausea and vomiting and shoulder pain were evaluated at 1., 2., 4., 8., 12., 24. hours. An i.v. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) (50 mg of dexketoprofen) as a rescue analgesic was given if the VAS was ≥5. RESULTS: There were no statistical significant differences between the clinical and demographic properties among the three groups (p≥0.005). During all periods, VAS in group I was significantly lower than that in groups II and III (p<0.001). Among the groups, although there was no significant difference in nausea and vomiting (p=0.058), there was a significant difference in shoulder pain. Group III (p<0.05) had more frequent shoulder pain than groups I and II. The total morphine consumption was higher in groups II and III (p<0.001 vs p<0.001) than in group I. The requirement for a rescue analgesic was significantly higher in group III (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Trocar site local anaesthetic infiltration is more effective for postoperative analgesia, easier to apply and safer than other analgesia methods. Morphine consumption is lesser and side effects are fewer; therefore, this method can be used as a part of common practice.