Quality indicators for ambulatory colectomy: literature search and expert consensus.

BACKGROUND: Care for patients undergoing elective colectomy has become increasingly standardized using Enhanced Recovery Programs (ERP). ERP, encorporating minimally invasive surgery (MIS), decreased postoperative morbidity and length of stay (LOS). However, disruptive changes are needed to safely introduce colectomy in an ambulatory or same-day discharge (SDD) setting. Few research groups showed the feasibility of ambulatory colectomy. So far, no minimum standards for the quality of care of this procedure have been defined. This study aims to identify quality indicators (QIs) that assess the quality of care for ambulatory colectomy. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify recommendations for ambulatory colectomy. Based on that search, a set of QIs was identified and categorized into seven domains: preparation of the patient (pre-admission), anesthesia, surgery, in-hospital monitoring, home monitoring, feasibility, and clinical outcomes. This list was presented to a panel of international experts (surgeons and anesthesiologists) in a 1 round Delphi to assess the relevance of the proposed indicators. RESULTS: Based on the literature search (2010-2021), 3841 results were screened on title and abstract for relevant information. Nine papers were withheld to identify the first set of QIs (n = 155). After excluding duplicates and outdated QIs, this longlist was narrowed down to 88 indicators. Afterward, consensus was reached in a 1 round Delphi on a final list of 32 QIs, aiming to be a comprehensive set to evaluate the quality of ambulatory colectomy care. CONCLUSION: We propose a list of 32 QI to guide and evaluate the implementation of ambulatory colectomy.

Perioperative pain management for cleft palate surgery: a systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) recommendations.

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE: Cleft palate surgery is associated with significant postoperative pain. Effective pain control can decrease stress and agitation in children undergoing cleft palate surgery and improve surgical outcomes. However, limited evidence often results in inadequate pain control after cleft palate surgery. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to evaluate the available evidence and to develop recommendations for optimal pain management after cleft palate surgery using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology. EVIDENCE REVIEW: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews assessing pain in children undergoing cleft palate repair published in English language from July 2002, through August 2023. FINDINGS: Of 1048 identified studies, 19 randomized controlled trials and 4 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Interventions that improved postoperative pain, and are recommended, include suprazygomatic maxillary nerve block or palatal nerve block (if maxillary nerve block cannot be performed). Addition of dexmedetomidine to local anesthetic for suprazygomatic maxillary nerve block or, alternatively, as intravenous administration perioperatively is recommended. These interventions should be combined with a basic analgesic regimen including acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Of note, pre-incisional local anesthetic infiltration and dexamethasone were administered as a routine in several studies, however, because of limited procedure-specific evidence their contribution to pain relief after cleft palate surgery remains unknown. CONCLUSION: The present review identified an evidence-based analgesic regimen for cleft palate surgery in pediatric patients. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022364788.

Spinal anaesthesia in obstetrics.

This article provides a comprehensive review of the technique, drugs of choice, and potential side effects and complications associated with the drugs used and the single-shot spinal anaesthesia (SSS) technique for caesarean delivery. Although neuraxial analgesia and anaesthesia are generally considered safe, all interventions come with potential adverse effects. As such, the practice of obstetric anaesthesia has evolved to minimize such risks. This review highlights the safety and efficacy of SSS for caesarean delivery while also discussing potential complications such as hypotension, postdural puncture headache, and nerve injury. In addition, drug selection and dosages are examined as well, emphasizing the importance of individualized treatment plans and close monitoring for optimal outcomes.

The next generation of antiemetics for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) afflict approximately 30% of patients overall and up to 80% of high-risk patients after surgery. Optimal pharmacological prophylaxis of PONV is challenging as it necessitates the consideration of PONV risk, drug efficacy, and potential adverse effects. Despite significant advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology and risk factors of PONV, its incidence has remained largely unchanged. Newer antiemetics have been introduced that may have improved safety profiles, longer duration of action, and better efficacy. This review aims to summarize the recent developments pertaining to these new agents and their potential application toward the management of PONV.

Transmuscular quadratus lumborum (TQL) block for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: study protocol for a double-blind, prospective randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural anesthesia is no longer considered the gold standard for perioperative analgesia in laparoscopic colorectal procedures. In the search for alternatives, the efficacy of the transverse abdominal plane (TAP) block and other abdominal wall blocks such as the transmuscular quadratus lumborum (TQL) block continues to be investigated for postoperative pain management. Most of the initial studies on TAP blocks reported positive effects; however, the amount of studies with negative outcomes is increasing, most probably due to the fact that the majority of abdominal wall blocks fail to mitigate visceral pain. The TQL block could prove attractive in the search for better postoperative pain relief after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. In several cadaveric studies of the TQL, a spread of dye into the thoracic paravertebral space, the intercostal spaces, and even the thoracic sympathetic trunk was reported. Given the advantage of possibly reaching the thoracic paravertebral space, the potential to reach nerves transmitting visceral pain, and the possible coverage of dermatomes T4-L1, we hypothesize that the TQL provides superior postoperative analgesia for laparoscopic colorectal surgery as compared to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine alone. METHODS AND DESIGN: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial, 150 patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery will be included. Patients will be randomly allocated to two different analgesic strategies: a bilateral TQL with 30 ml ropivacaine 0.375% each on both sides, administered before induction of anesthesia, plus postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine (TQL group, n = 75), or a bilateral TQL block with 30 ml saline each on both sides plus postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine (placebo group, n = 75). Our primary outcome parameter will be the morphine consumption during the first 24 h postsurgery. Secondary endpoints include pain intensity as assessed with the numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain, time to return of intestinal function (defined as the time to first flatus and the time to the first postoperative intake of solid food), time to first mobilization, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting during the first 24 h, length of stay on the post anesthesia care unit (PACU) and in the hospital, the extent of sensory block at two time points (admission to and discharge from the PACU), the doses of morphine IV as requested by the patient from the PCA pump, the total dosage of morphine administered IV, the need for and dose of rescue analgesics (ketamine, clonidine), free plasma ropivacaine levels after induction and at discharge from the PACU, and the incidence of adverse events during treatment (in particular, signs of local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST)). Epidural analgesia is no longer the standard of care for postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Until now, the most effective analgesic strategy in these patients especially in an enhanced recovery program is still unknown. Several abdominal wall blocks (TAP, fascia transversalis plane block) are known to have an analgesic effect only on somatic pain. Recognizing the importance of procedure-specific pain management, we aim to investigate whether a transmuscular quadratus lumborum block delivers superior pain control in comparison to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT identifier 2019-002304-40. Registered on 17 September 2019.

In search of the Holy Grail: Poisons and extended release local anesthetics.

Regional anesthesia has been advocated as adjunct to a multimodal analgesia regimen. The limited duration of the action of available local anesthetics limits their application. Catheters, perineural or IV adjuvants, or repetition of blocks are modalities available to prolong the analgesic benefit of LRA. All of these approaches have their shortcomings. New extended release local anesthetic formulations may provide time-efficient and longer duration of analgesia with a single injection. Available data on liposomal bupivacaine are promising, and more recently, it has been FDA approved for use in interscalene brachial plexus block but not for other nerve blocks at this time. Several other new formulations and compounds, such as HTX-011, Neosaxitoxin, and SABER-Bupivacaine, are also being developed and tested for their safety and analgesic potential.

Quadratus Lumborum Block Versus Perioperative Intravenous Lidocaine for Postoperative Pain Control in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Controlled Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the comparative analgesic efficacy of systemic lidocaine and quadratus lumborum (QL) block in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. BACKGROUND: Although epidural analgesia is the standard to control pain in patients undergoing open colorectal surgery, optimal analgesic management in laparoscopic surgery is less well-defined. There is need for effective and efficient alternatives to epidural analgesia for pain management in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: A total of 125 patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included in this randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial. Patients randomly received an intravenous infusion with placebo plus a QL-block with placebo, a QL-block with ropivacaine 0.25% plus intravenous placebo, or intravenous lidocaine plus a QL-block with placebo. Postoperatively, all patients received patient-controlled intravenous anesthesia (PCIA) with morphine. Primary outcome parameter was the opioid consumption during the first 24 hours postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included severity of postoperative pain, time to return of intestinal function, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The QL-block was not superior to systemic lidocaine for the reduction of morphine requirements in the first 24 hours postoperatively {QL-group: 37.5 (28.4) mg [mean (standard deviation)] vs lidocaine group: 40.2 (25) mg, P = 0.15}. For the majority of secondary outcome parameters, no significant differences were found between the groups. Morphine consumption in the postanesthesia care unit, the number of PCIA-boli demanded by the patient, and the number of PCIA-boli delivered by the PCIA-pump during the first 24 hours postoperatively were lower in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In our trial, the QL-block did not provide superior postoperative analgesia when compared to systemic lidocaine in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudra CT: 2014-001499-73; 31/7/2014.

Xenon as an Adjuvant to Propofol Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Xenon was shown to cause less hemodynamic instability and reduce vasopressor needs during off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery when compared with conventionally used anesthetics. As xenon exerts its organ protective properties even in subanesthetic concentrations, we hypothesized that in patients undergoing OPCAB surgery, 30% xenon added to general anesthesia with propofol results in superior hemodynamic stability when compared to anesthesia with propofol alone. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing elective OPCAB surgery were randomized to receive general anesthesia with 30% xenon adjuvant to a target-controlled infusion of propofol or with propofol alone. The primary end point was the total intraoperative dose of norepinephrine required to maintain an intraoperative mean arterial pressure >70 mm Hg. Secondary outcomes included the perioperative cardiorespiratory profile and the incidence of adverse and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Adding xenon to propofol anesthesia resulted in a significant reduction of norepinephrine required to attain the predefined hemodynamic goals (cumulative intraoperative dose: median [interquartile range]: 370 [116-570] vs 840 [335-1710] µg, P = .001). In the xenon-propofol group, significantly less propofol was required to obtain a similar depth of anesthesia as judged by clinical signs and the bispectral index (propofol effect site concentration [mean ± SD]: 1.8 ± 0.5 vs 2.8 ± 0.3 mg, P≤ .0001). Moreover, the xenon-propofol group required significantly less norepinephrine during the first 24 hours on the intensive care unit (median [interquartile range]: 1.5 [0.1-7] vs 5 [2-8] mg, P = .048). Other outcomes and safety parameters were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty percent xenon added to propofol anesthesia improves hemodynamic stability by decreasing norepinephrine requirements in patients undergoing OPCAB surgery.

Systemic Lidocaine Fails to Improve Postoperative Pain, But Reduces Time to Discharge Readiness in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Sterilization in Day-Case Surgery: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Perioperative systemic lidocaine provides postoperative analgesia, decreases opioid consumption, and facilitates rehabilitation in abdominal surgery. We hypothesized that systemic lidocaine has analgesic effects in women undergoing day-case laparoscopic sterilization. METHODS: Eighty women were randomized in this prospective, double-blind trial to receive either lidocaine (intravenous bolus of 1.5 mg/kg at induction of anesthesia, followed by an infusion of 1.5 mg · kg · h, which was continued until 30 minutes after arrival at the postanesthesia care unit [PACU]) or placebo. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a numeric rating scale (NRS) of greater than 3, 30 minutes after arrival at the PACU. Secondary outcomes included total opioid consumption, postoperative pain scores, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and time to readiness for discharge. This clinical trial was registered (Eudra CT 2011-001315-31). RESULTS: Thirty minutes after PACU admission, the proportion of patients with an NRS score of greater than 3 did not differ between the groups (lidocaine group: 59% vs placebo group: 58%). The postoperative NRS for pain over the entire observation period was not significantly different between lidocaine and placebo groups (mean, 3.1 [SD, 0.7] vs 2.8 [SD, 0.6]; P = 0.4). Groups did not differ with respect to perioperative opioid consumption. Patients in the placebo group suffered significantly less from nausea (NRS: 0.1 [SD, 0.1] [placebo] vs 0.3 [SD, 0.1] [lidocaine]; P = 0.02) and required less postoperative nausea and vomiting rescue medication (1 patient in the placebo group vs 7 in the lidocaine group; P = 0.03). The time to meet hospital discharge criteria was significantly lower in the lidocaine group (median, 177 minutes [range, 96-408 minutes] vs 221 minutes [range, 121-420 minutes]; P = 0.02). The mean lidocaine plasma levels at the end of IV lidocaine infusion was 2.5 (SD, 1.1) µg/mL. CONCLUSIONS: In laparoscopic sterilization, systemic lidocaine reduces time to readiness for hospital discharge.

Alizapride and ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynaecological surgery: A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled noninferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) can be prevented. Alizapride is an established antiemetic that may be effective in this role. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to test the hypothesis that alizapride is noninferior to ondansetron for the prophylaxis of PONV. DESIGN: A randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded noninferiority study. SETTING: University hospitals of Leuven, Belgium, from November 2008 to July 2011. PATIENTS: A total of 523 patients undergoing laparoscopic gynaecological surgery were included in the study. Reasons for exclusion were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) greater than 2, hypersensitivity to the study medication, pregnancy, mental disorders, psychiatric illness or consumption of antiemetic drugs within 24 h before initiation of the study. INTERVENTION: Patients received either alizapride 100 mg, ondansetron 4 mg or placebo intravenously 30 min before the end of surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures included the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) during the stay in the postanaesthetic care unit (PACU), with noninferiority testing for alizapride versus ondansetron. The region of noninferiority was defined as a relative difference in incidence of 25%. Secondary outcome was the incidence of PONV in the PACU and after 24 h. RESULTS: In the alizapride group, 32% of the patients experienced PON during the PACU stay, compared with 28% in the ondansetron group [relative risk 1.13, 90% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.46], exceeding the predefined margin of noninferiority. With respect to the incidences of POV during the PACU stay, 12.8% of the patients randomised to receive alizapride experienced POV, compared with 7.7% of who received ondansetron (relative risk 1.67, 90% CI 1.00 to 2.87). The incidences of PON and POV in the placebo group during the PACU stay were 34.2 and 9.8%, respectively. The 24-h incidences of PONV were lower than expected in this high-risk group of patients and were similar at 39.3, 36.8 and 31.5% in the placebo, alizapride and ondansetron groups, respectively (χ², P = 0.36). Patients treated with ondansetron required significantly less rescue medication than placebo-treated patients (P = 0.035). Due to the lower than expected incidences of PONV in this study, the power to conclude any noninferiority of alizapride was reduced to only 41%. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence to support the noninferiority of alizapride 100 mg when compared with ondansetron 4 mg for the intraoperative prophylaxis of PONV. However, the lower than expected incidences of PONV reduced the power of this study to conclude noninferiority or confirm significant beneficial effects for either antiemetic for PON and POV during the PACU stay. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudra CT 2008-004789-20.

Transversus abdominis plane block versus perioperative intravenous lidocaine versus patient-controlled intravenous morphine for postoperative pain control after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: study protocol for a prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the laparoscopic approach becoming the standard in colorectal surgery, postoperative pain management for minimally invasive surgery is still mainly based on strategies that have been established for open surgical procedures. Patient-controlled epidural and intravenous analgesia are considered standard postoperative analgesia regimens in colorectal surgery. Epidural analgesia provides excellent analgesia, but is increasingly scrutinized in laparoscopic surgery since postoperative pain after the laparoscopic approach is significantly reduced. Moreover, epidural analgesia can be associated with numerous complications. Therefore, epidural analgesia is no longer recommended for the management of postoperative pain in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Likewise, patient-controlled intravenous analgesia is subject to significant side effects. Given these important limitations of the traditional strategies for postoperative analgesia, effective and efficient alternatives in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery are needed. Both the transversus abdominis plane block and systemically administered lidocaine have already been reported to effectively reduce pain after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. We hypothesize that the transversus abdominis plane block is superior to perioperative intravenous lidocaine. METHODS/DESIGN: One hundred and twenty five patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery will be included in this prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial. Patients will be randomly allocated to three different postoperative strategies: postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine (control group, n = 25), a transversus abdominis plane block with ropivacaine 0.375% at the end of surgery plus postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine (TAP group, n = 50), or perioperative intravenous lidocaine plus postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine (LIDO group, n = 50). As the primary outcome parameter, we will evaluate the opioid consumption during the first 24 postoperative hours. Secondary endpoints include the Numeric Rating Scale, time to return of intestinal function, time to mobilization, inflammatory response, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, length of hospital stay and postoperative morbidity as assessed with the Clavien-Dindo classification. DISCUSSION: Recognizing the importance of a multimodal approach for perioperative pain management, we aim to investigate whether a transversus abdominis plane block delivers superior pain control in comparison to perioperative intravenous lidocaine and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Identifier: 2014-001499-73; 31 July 2014.