Ultrasound-Guided vs. Fluoroscopy-Guided Interventions for Back Pain Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of the ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided techniques in the management of back pain. Using PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, we searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before May 2023, which reported relevant data on the topic. The effectiveness of the ultrasound-guided (US-guided) and fluoroscopy-guided (FL-guided) approaches for back pain management was compared in terms of postoperative pain intensity, postoperative functional outcomes, and postoperative complications. Subgroup analyses were conducted for different postoperative periods. Eight studies were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in post-procedural pain relief at one week, two weeks, one month, two months, and three months between the US-guided and FL-guided interventions for back pain management (SMD with 95% CI is -0.01 [-0.11, 0.10]), p = 0.91, I2 = 0%). In terms of the postoperative functional outcomes assessed by the "Oswestry Disability Index" (ODI) functionality score, the model tends to favor the FL-guided injections over the US-guided injections (SMD with 95% CI: 0.13 [-0.00, 0.25], p = 0.05, I2 = 0). Finally, the US-guided and FL-guided injections did not show significantly different results in terms of postoperative complications (RR with 95% CI is 0.99 [0.49, 1.99], p = 0.97, I2 = 0). The subgroup analysis also did not demonstrate differences between the US-guided and FL-guided techniques in the following outcomes: vasovagal reaction, transient headache, and facial flushing. There was no significant difference between the US-guided and FL-guided injections for treating back pain in terms of postoperative pain intensity and complications. Still, the model tends to favor the FL-guided injections over the US-guided injections in terms of functionality.

Postoperative Delirium and Cognitive Dysfunction after General and Regional Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Perioperative disorders of neurocognitive function are a set of heterogeneous conditions, which include transient post-operative delirium (POD) and more prolonged post-operative cognitive dysfunction (POCD). Since the number of annually performed surgical procedures is growing, we should identify which type of anesthesia is safer for preserving neurocognitive function. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of general anesthesia (GA) and regional anesthesia (RA) in patients undergoing surgical procedures under general anesthesia and regional anesthesia. Material and methods: We searched for randomized controlled studies, which studied post-operative cognitive outcomes after general and regional anesthesia in the adult patient population. Results: Thirteen articles with 3633 patients: the RA group consisted of 1823 patients, and the GA group of 1810 patients, who were selected for meta-analysis. The overall effect of the model shows no difference between these two groups in terms of risk for post-operative delirium. The result is insensitive to the exclusion of any study. There was no difference between RA and GA in terms of post-operative cognitive dysfunction. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference between GA and RA in the incidence of POD. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of POCD per-protocol analysis, psychomotor/attention tests (preoperative/baseline, post-operative), memory tests (postoperatively, follow up), mini-mental state examination score 24 h postoperatively, post-operative reaction time three months postoperatively, controlled oral word association test, and digit copying test. There were no differences in the incidence of POCD in general and regional anesthesia at one week postoperatively, three months postoperatively, or total events (one week or three months). The incidence of post-operative mortality also did not differ between two groups.

The Effect of Coronavirus Outbreak on the Utilization of Coronary Revascularization Procedures: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic represented a great challenge for health systems, which had to quickly readapt and dedicate most of their resources to managing this crisis. The postponement of programmed interventions such as coronary revascularization procedures represented a critical issue in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in the hardest-hit countries such as Spain. However, the precise consequences of the delay of coronary revascularizations are not clearly determined. In the present work, interrupted time series (ITS) analysis was used to evaluate the utilization rates and assessment of the risk profiles of patients receiving two main coronary revascularization procedures (percutaneous coronary intervention-PCI and coronary artery bypass graft-CABG) and compared them in the periods before and after March 2020 using the Spanish National Hospital Discharge Database (SNHDD). Our results show that the abrupt reorganization of hospital care that represented the first wave of COVID-19 in March 2020 in Spain led to a reduction in cases, which was accompanied by an increase in the risk profile of CABG patients, but not PCI. On the other hand, the risk profile of both coronary revascularization procedures began before the pandemic, showing a significant temporal trend toward an increase in the risk profile. Future works should be directed to study and validate our results, evaluating other databases, regions, or countries.

Detection of the Frail Elderly at Risk of Postoperative Sepsis.

With the increase in the elderly population, surgery in aged patients is seeing an exponential increase. In this population, sepsis is a major concern for perioperative care, especially in older and frail patients. We aim to investigate the incidence of sepsis in elderly patients receiving diverse types of surgical procedures and explore the predictive capacity of the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) to identify patients at high risk of incidence of postoperative sepsis. This study relies on information from the Spanish Minimum Basic Data Set, including data from nearly 300 hospitals in Spain. We extracted records of 254,836 patients aged 76 years and older who underwent a series of surgical interventions within three consecutive years (2016-2018). The HFRS and Elixhauser comorbidity index were computed to determine the independent effect on the incidence of sepsis. Overall, the incidence of postoperative sepsis was 2645 (1.04%). The higher risk of sepsis was in major stomach, esophageal, and duodenal (7.62%), followed by major intestinal procedures (5.65%). Frail patients are at high risk of sepsis. HFRS demonstrated a high predictive capacity to identify patients with a risk of postoperative sepsis and can be a valid instrument for risk stratification and vigilant perioperative monitoring for the early identification of patients at high risk of sepsis.