Human foot muscle strength and its association with sprint acceleration, cutting and jumping performance, and kinetics in high-level athletes.

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPj) flexion torque and sprint acceleration, cutting and jumping performance, and kinetics. A secondary aim was to explore this relationship when MTP flexion strength was associated with other foot and lower limb neuromuscular outputs. After an initial MTPj flexion torque assessment using a custom-built dynamometer, 52 high-level athletes performed the following tasks on a force platform system: maximal sprint acceleration, 90-degree cutting, vertical and horizontal jumps, and foot-ankle hops. Their foot posture, foot passive stiffness and foot-ankle reactive strength were assessed using the Foot Posture Index, the Arch Height Index Measurement System and the Foot-Ankle Rebound Jump Test. Ankle plantarflexion and knee extension isometric torque were assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer. During maximal speed sprinting, multiple linear regressions suggested a major contribution of MTPj flexion torque, foot passive stiffness and foot-ankle reactive strength to explain 28% and 35% of the total variance in the effective vertical impulse and contact time. Ankle plantarflexor and quadriceps isometric torques were aggregately contributors of acceleration performance and separate contributors of cutting and jumping performance. In conclusion, MTPj flexion torque was more strongly associated with sprinting performance kinetics especially at high-speed.

Reliability and measurement error of a maximal voluntary toe plantarflexion measurement process.

Despite the growing interest, information regarding the psychometric properties of maximal voluntary isometric toe plantarflexion force and rate of force development (RFD) is lacking. Hence, we investigate the test-retest reliability and measurement error of these outcome measurement instruments measured with a custom-built dynamometer. Twenty-six healthy adults participated in a crossed design with four sessions separated by 5-7 days. RFD was quantified using manual onset and calculating the impulse and the slope in the following time windows: 0-50 ms, 0-100 ms, 0-150 ms, 0-200 ms, 0-250 ms. We estimated the systematic bias of the mean, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) from the agreement and consistency models. The ICC and the SEM agreement for maximal voluntary isometric toe plantarflexion force along the perpendicular axis were respectively 0.87 (95%CI: 0.76, 0.93) and 27 N (22, 32), while along the resultant of the perpendicular and anterior posterior axis they were 0.85 (0.73, 0.92) and 29 N (23, 35). The results of the consistency model were similar as the estimated variance for session was closer to zero. A systematic bias of the mean between session 1 and 3 was found. For the RFD variables, the ICC agreement ranged from 0.35 to 0.65. The measurement process was found to be reliable to assess maximal voluntary isometric toe plantarflexion force but not RFD. However, a familiarization session is mandatory and these results need to be confirmed in less coordinated (e.g. aging population) individuals.

Phlebotomy resulting in controlled hypovolemia to prevent blood loss in major hepatic resections (PRICE-2): study protocol for a phase 3 randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Blood loss and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in liver surgery are areas of concern for surgeons, anesthesiologists, and patients alike. While various methods are employed to reduce surgical blood loss, the evidence base surrounding each intervention is limited. Hypovolemic phlebotomy, the removal of whole blood from the patient without volume replacement during liver transection, has been strongly associated with decreased bleeding and RBC transfusion in observational studies. This trial aims to investigate whether hypovolemic phlebotomy is superior to usual care in reducing RBC transfusions in liver resection. METHODS: This study is a double-blind multicenter randomized controlled trial. Adult patients undergoing major hepatic resections for any indication will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either hypovolemic phlebotomy and usual care or usual care alone. Exclusion criteria will be minor resections, preoperative hemoglobin <100g/L, renal insufficiency, and other contraindication to hypovolemic phlebotomy. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients receiving at least one allogeneic RBC transfusion unit within 30 days of the onset of surgery. Secondary outcomes will include transfusion of other allogeneic blood products, blood loss, morbidity, mortality, and intraoperative physiologic parameters. The surgical team will be blinded to the intervention. Randomization will occur on the morning of surgery. The sample size will comprise 440 patients. Enrolment will occur at four Canadian academic liver surgery centers over a 4-year period. Ethics approval will be obtained at participating sites before enrolment. DISCUSSION: The results of this randomized control trial will provide high-quality evidence regarding the use of hypovolemic phlebotomy in major liver resection and its effects on RBC transfusion. If proven to be effective, this intervention could become standard of care in liver operations internationally and become incorporated within perioperative patient blood management programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03651154 . Registered on August 29 2018.

Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia - Revised Edition 2021.

OVERVIEW: The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2021 (the Guidelines) were prepared by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS), which reserves the right to determine their publication and distribution. The Guidelines are subject to revision and updated versions are published annually. The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2021 supersedes all previously published versions of this document. Although the CAS encourages Canadian anesthesiologists to adhere to its practice guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, the CAS cannot guarantee any specific patient outcome. Anesthesiologists should exercise their own professional judgement in determining the proper course of action for any patient's circumstances. The CAS assumes no responsibility or liability for any error or omission arising from the use of any information contained in its Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia.

RéSUMé: Le Guide d'exercice de l'anesthésie, version révisée 2021 (le Guide), a été préparé par la Société canadienne des anesthésiologistes (SCA), qui se réserve le droit de décider des termes de sa publication et de sa diffusion. Le Guide est soumis à révision et des versions mises à jour sont publiées chaque année. Le Guide d'exercice de l'anesthésie, version révisée 2021, remplace toutes les versions précédemment publiées de ce document. Bien que la SCA incite les anesthésiologistes du Canada à se conformer à son guide d'exercice pour assurer une grande qualité des soins dispensés aux patients, elle ne peut garantir les résultats d'une intervention spécifique. Les anesthésiologistes doivent exercer leur jugement professionnel pour déterminer la méthode d'intervention la mieux adaptée à l'état de leur patient. La SCA n'accepte aucune responsabilité ou imputabilité de quelque nature que ce soit découlant d'erreurs ou d'omissions ou de l'utilisation des renseignements contenus dans son Guide d'exercice de l'anesthésie.

Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia - Revised Edition 2020.

OVERVIEW: The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2020 (the Guidelines) were prepared by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS), which reserves the right to determine their publication and distribution. The Guidelines are subject to revision and updated versions are published annually. The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2020 supersedes all previously published versions of this document. Although the CAS encourages Canadian anesthesiologists to adhere to its practice guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, the CAS cannot guarantee any specific patient outcome. Anesthesiologists should exercise their own professional judgement in determining the proper course of action for any patient's circumstances. The CAS assumes no responsibility or liability for any error or omission arising from the use of any information contained in its Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia.

Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia - Revised Edition 2019.

OVERVIEW: The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2019 (the Guidelines) were prepared by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS), which reserves the right to determine their publication and distribution. The Guidelines are subject to revision and updated versions are published annually. The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2019 supersedes all previously published versions of this document. Although the CAS encourages Canadian anesthesiologists to adhere to its practice guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, the CAS cannot guarantee any specific patient outcome. Anesthesiologists should exercise their own professional judgement in determining the proper course of action for any patient's circumstances. The CAS assumes no responsibility or liability for any error or omission arising from the use of any information contained in its Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia.

Description of a Tertiary Swiss University Hospital palliative population based on the International Classification of Disease (ICD): a retrospective pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The factors for assessing the utilization rate of a palliative care service are various and complex. Several authors have described different methods to address this problem. McNamara and colleagues have proposed criteria to determine "minimal," "mid-range," and "maximal" palliative population estimates. In order to evaluate the utilization of our intrahospital palliative care consult team (PCT), it appeared necessary to better describe and define the population who dies in our institution, a Swiss university hospital. The goal of this pilot study was to determine what percentage of patients who died in our hospital over a 4-month period in 2007 was seen by the palliative care consult team (PCT), using "minimal" and "maximal" population estimates. METHODS: The hospital database was searched for all adult patients who died during that period and the "maximal" and "minimal" populations determined. The PCT's database was searched to identify those patients who had been seen by the PCT. The charts of a random sample of patients who did not initially meet the "minimal" criteria were hand searched. RESULTS: A total of 294 adult deaths were reported: 263 (89%) met the "maximal" criteria and 83 (28%) met the "minimal" criteria initially. The random search of 56 charts of the 180 patients who did not meet the "minimal" criteria revealed that 21 (38%) should have been included in the "minimal" population. The PCT saw 67/263 (25.5%) of the "maximal" palliative patient population and 56/151 (37.1%) of the "minimal" palliative population. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the usefulness of the method proposed by McNamara and colleagues to determine palliative populations. However, it also illustrates an important limitation of the "minimal" estimate and reliance on the accuracy of the cause of death as noted on the death certificate. A strategy to address this limitation is suggested. The "maximal" estimate suggests that the PCT is being underutilized.

Effects of phlebotomy and phenylephrine infusion on portal venous pressure and systemic hemodynamics during liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: A regimen of fluid restriction, phlebotomy, vasopressors, and strict, protocol-guided product replacement has been associated with low blood product use during orthotopic liver transplantation. However, the physiologic basis of this strategy remains unclear. We hypothesized that a reduction of intravascular volume by phlebotomy would cause a decrease in portal venous pressure (PVP), which would be sustained during subsequent phenylephrine infusion, possibly explaining reduced bleeding. Because phenylephrine may increase central venous pressure (CVP), we questioned the validity of CVP as a correlate of cardiac filling in this context and compared it with other pulmonary artery catheter and transesophageal echocardiography-derived parameters. In particular, because optimal views for echocardiographic estimation of preload and stroke volume are not always applicable during liver transplantation, we evaluated the use of transmitral flow (TMF) early peak (E) velocity as a surrogate. METHODS: In study 1, the changes in directly measured PVP and CVP were recorded before and after phlebotomy and phenylephrine infusion in 10 patients near the end of the dissection phase of liver transplantation. In study 2, transesophageal echocardiography-derived TMF velocity in early diastole was measured in 20 patients, and the changes were compared with changes in CVP, pulmonary artery pressure (PAP), pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), cardiac output (CO), and calculated systemic vascular resistance (SVR) at the following times: postinduction, postphlebotomy, preclamping of the inferior vena cava, during clamping, and postunclamping. RESULTS: Phlebotomy decreased PVP along with CO, PAP, PCWP, CVP, and TMF E velocity. Phenylephrine given after phlebotomy increased CVP, SVR, and arterial blood pressure but had no significant effect on CO, PAP, PCWP, or PVP. The change in TMF E velocity correlated well with the change in CO (Pearson correlation coefficient 95% confidence interval 0.738-0.917, P< or =0.015) but less well with the change in PAP (0.554-0.762, P< or =0.012) and PCWP (0.576-0.692, P< or =0.008). TMF E velocity did not correlate significantly with CVP or calculated SVR. CONCLUSION: Phlebotomy during the dissection phase of liver transplantation decreased PVP, which was unaffected when phenylephrine infusion was used to restore systemic arterial pressure. This may contribute to a decrease in operative blood loss. CVP often increased in response to phenylephrine infusion and did not seem to reflect cardiac filling. The changes in TMF E velocity correlated well with the changes in CO, PAP, and PCWP during liver transplantation but not with the changes in CVP.

Perioperative interscalene block versus intra-articular injection of local anesthetics for postoperative analgesia in shoulder surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Up to 70% of patients report moderate to severe pain after shoulder surgery, which can compromise early rehabilitation and functional recuperation. Postoperative shoulder pain control is improved with both interscalene block and intra-articular local anesthetic injection. The present study hypothesized that perioperative interscalene analgesia would offer pain control superior to perioperative intra-articular local anesthetics over the first 24 hours after surgery. METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing shoulder surgery were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: group IS had interscalene block with catheter installation, while group IA received intra-articular local anesthetic, also with catheter installation. All patients received 3 local anesthetic injections: 0.25 mL/kg of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 2.5 microg/mL immediately before and after surgery, and 0.25 mL/kg of 0.5% bupivacaine with epinephrine 2.5 microg/mL 1 hour after the end of surgery, after which the catheters were removed, and no further local anesthetics were administered. Postoperative pain at rest was evaluated in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), 3 hours, 6 hours and 24 hours after surgery. The area under the 24 hour pain over time curve was calculated. Hydromorphone consumption in the PACU and over 24 hours was recorded. RESULTS: Pain scores (IS: 0.4 +/- 2 vs. IA: 4 +/- 3, P < .0001) and opioid consumption (IS: 0.7 mg +/- 1.4 vs. IA: 1.5 mg +/- 1.2, P = .02) were significantly higher in the PACU for group IA. However, neither the mean pain scores over the first day after surgery (IS: 5 +/- 2 vs. IA: 5 +/- 3; P = .4) nor 24-hour opioid consumption (IS: 4.4 mg +/- 2.8 vs. IA: 4.2 mg +/- 2.6; P = .4) were significantly higher in group IA. CONCLUSIONS: PACU measurements of immediate postoperative pain and narcotic consumption favor perioperative interscalene analgesia over intra-articular analgesia. This benefit does not translate into lower overall pain for the first 24 hours after surgery.