Skin conductance algesimeter is unreliable during sudden perioperative temperature increases.

OBJECTIVES: Pain assessment in anesthetized and non-communicative patients remains a challenge. Clinical signs such as tachycardia, hypertension, sweat and tears, have a low specificity for pain and should therefore ideally be replaced by more specific monitoring techniques. Skin conductance variability has been demonstrated to establish a patients' sensitivity to pain, but may be influenced by temperature changes that leads to profuse sweating. The aim of this pilot study was to test skin conductance changes during sudden temperature changes due to hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) perfusation. METHODS: We investigated skin conductance algesimeter (SCA) in ten consecutive patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC. Results from the SCA was compared to other standard physiological variables at seven time points during the surgical procedure, in particular during the period with hyperthermic intraabdominal perfusion leading to an increase in the patients core temperature. RESULTS: Nine out of ten patients had an increase in the SCA measurements during the HIPEC phase correlating the increase in temperature. CONCLUSION: SCA is unreliable to detect increased pain sensation during sudden perioperative temperature changes in adult patients.

Patient-reported nausea after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for gynae-oncology patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyze the adherence to strategies to prevent post-operative nausea and vomiting after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for gynae-oncology patients. Patient-reported nausea before and after ERAS was also studied. METHODS: This prospective observational study included all patients undergoing laparotomy for a suspicious pelvic mass or confirmed advanced ovarian cancer before (pre-ERAS) and after the implementation of ERAS (post-ERAS) at Oslo University Hospital, Norway. Patients were a priori stratified according to the planned extent of surgery into two cohorts (Cohort 1: Surgery of advanced disease; Cohort 2: Surgery for a suspicious pelvic tumor). Clinical data including baseline characteristics and outcome data were prospectively collected. RESULTS: A total of 439 patients were included, 243 pre-ERAS and 196 post-ERAS. At baseline, 27% of the patients reported any grade of nausea. In the post-ERAS cohort, statistically significantly more patients received double post-operative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis (64% pre-ERAS vs 84% post-ERAS, p<0.0001). There was no difference in the need for rescue medication (82% pre-ERAS vs 79% post-ERAS; p=0.17) and no statistically significant difference between pre- and post-ERAS or between the surgical cohorts in patient-reported nausea of any grade on day 2. Patients who reported none/mild nausea on day 2 had significantly less peri-operative fluid administered during surgery than those who reported moderate or severe nausea (median 12.5 mL/kg/hour vs 16.5 mL/kg/hour, p=0.045) but, in multivariable analysis, fluid management did not remain significantly associated with nausea. CONCLUSION: Implementation of an ERAS protocol increased the adherence to post-operative nausea and vomiting prevention guidelines. Nausea, both before and after laparotomy, remains an unmet clinical need of gynae-oncology patients also in an ERAS program. Patient-reported outcome measures warrant further investigation in the evaluation of ERAS.

Prospective evaluation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway in a Norwegian cohort of patients with suspected or advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective cohort study evaluated the introduction of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway in a tertiary gynecologic oncology referral center. Compliance and clinical outcomes were studied in two separate surgical cohorts. METHODS: Patients undergoing laparotomy for suspected or verified advanced ovarian cancer at Oslo University Hospital were prospectively included in a pre- and post-implementation cohort. A priori, patients were stratified into: cohort 1, patients planned for surgery of advanced disease; and cohort 2, patients undergoing surgery for suspicious pelvic tumor. Baseline characteristics, adherence to the pathway, and clinical outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 439 included patients, 235 (54%) underwent surgery for advanced ovarian cancer in cohort 1 and 204 (46%) in cohort 2. In cohort 1, 53% of the patients underwent surgery with an intermediate/high Aletti complexity score. Post-ERAS, median fasting times for solids (13.1 hours post-ERAS vs 16.0 hours pre-ERAS, p<0.001) and fluids (3.7 hours post-ERAS vs 11.0 hours pre-ERAS, p<0.001) were significantly reduced. Peri-operative fluid management varied less and was reduced from median 15.8 mL/kg/hour (IQR 10.8-22.5) to 11.5 mL/kg/hour (IQR 9.0-15.4) (p<0.001). In cohort 2 only there was a statistically significant reduction in length of stay (mean (SD) 4.3±1.5 post-ERAS vs 4.6±1.2 pre-ERAS, p=0.026). Despite stable readmission rates, there were significantly more serious complications reported in cohort 1 post-ERAS. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS increased adherence to current standards in peri-operative management with significant reduction in fasting times for both solids and fluids, and peri-operative fluid administration. Length of stay was reduced in patients with suspicious pelvic tumor. Despite serious complications being common in patients with advanced disease undergoing debulking surgery, a causal relationship with the ERAS protocol could not be established. Implementing ERAS and continuous performance auditing are crucial to advancing peri-operative care of patients with ovarian cancer.

Patient needs in evacuation of a tertiary oncology center.

To inform ongoing contingency planning, hospital staff conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients' needs in the event of a full-facility evacuation of a tertiary oncology center. Both outpatients and inpatients were included. Of the total of 269 patients, 76.6 percent were able to evacuate by walking out of the hospital and be transported sitting. Only 30 patients needed evacuation by an ambulance. Assessment of the lowest acceptable level of care after evacuation revealed that 66.5 percent of the patients could be discharged to their own home, including 40.8 percent of all inpatients. Due to the need to continue specialized cancer treatment, fewer patients could be transferred to other hospitals than found in previous studies of general acute care hospitals.