SARS-CoV-2 infection. Descriptive analysis of a selected case series.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 was declared pandemic by March 2020. Clinical, analytical, and radiological findings have been reported. Detailed different evolution of patients of the same local outbreak has been scarcely reported. We report 6 selected cases of such an evolution. CLINICAL CASES: The clinical, radiological, analytical evolution of 6 patients is reported. Patients were selected as it were epidemiological close contacts, and showed particular different clinical evolution. RESULTS: The clinical course at the start of infection (first week) was similar among patients. In relationship with clinical evolution, middle to severe course were related with inflammation markers levels evolution (D-dimer, IL-6, ferritin, lymphocytes count, etc.). Specially lung alterations were observed, but neurological/neuropsychiatric findings are still common. In evolution, 2 patients showed middle symptoms, but the 2 most severely affected died. CONCLUSIONS: It remains to be elucidated the different evolutive pathways and outcomes of COVD-19. In our 6 patients of the same local outbreak, clinical, laboratory and radiological features were different. We discuss some aspects of the pathophysiology of the disease, other than the widely described of the respiratory system.

Infección por SARS-CoV-2. Análisis descriptivo de una serie de casos seleccionada / SARS-CoV-2 infection. Descriptive analysis of a selected case series

Objetivos: La COVID-19 fue declarada pandemia en marzo del 2020. Han sido comunicados los hallazgos clínicos, analíticos y radiológicos. Sin embargo, la diversa evolución de pacientes del mismo brote local lo ha sido escasamente. Comunicamos en este trabajo 6 casos seleccionados de tal evolución. Casos clínicos: Se expone la evolución clínica, radiológica y analítica de 6 pacientes. Estos fueron seleccionados ya que fueron epidemiológicamente contactos estrechos y mostraron una evolución clínica particularmente diferente. Resultados: El curso clínico al inicio de la infección (primera semana) fue similar entre los pacientes. En relación con la evolución clínica, un curso moderado a severo se relacionó evolutivamente con marcadores elevados de inflamación (dímero D, IL-6, ferritina, linfopenia, etc.). Fueron observadas alteraciones pulmonares típicas, pero fueron comunes también hallazgos neurológicos y neuropsiquiátricos. En la evolución 2pacientes mostraron síntomas moderados, pero los 2 más gravemente afectados murieron. Conclusiones: Está por elucidar las diferentes vías evolutivas y resultados finales de los pacientes con COVID-19. En nuestros 6 pacientes del mismo brote local, las características clínicas, de laboratorio y radiológicas fueron diferentes. Discutimos aspectos de la fisiopatología de la enfermedad distintos de los ampliamente descritos del sistema respiratorio.(AU)

Objectives: COVID-19 was declared pandemic by March 2020. Clinical, analytical, and radiological findings have been reported. Detailed different evolution of patients of the same local outbreak has been scarcely reported. We report 6 selected cases of such an evolution. Clinical cases: The clinical, radiological, analytical evolution of 6patients is reported. Patients were selected as it were epidemiological close contacts, and showed particular different clinical evolution. Results: The clinical course at the start of infection (first week) was similar among patients. In relationship with clinical evolution, middle to severe course were related with inflammation markers levels evolution (D-dimer, IL-6, ferritin, lymphocytes count, etc.). Specially lung alterations were observed, but neurological/neuropsychiatric findings are still common. In evolution, 2patients showed middle symptoms, but the 2most severely affected died. Conclusions: It remains to be elucidated the different evolutive pathways and outcomes of COVD-19. In our 6 patients of the same local outbreak, clinical, laboratory and radiological features were different. We discuss some aspects of the pathophysiology of the disease, other than the widely described of the respiratory system.(AU)

[SARS-CoV-2 infection. Descriptive analysis of a selected case series]. / Infección por SARS-CoV-2. Análisis descriptivo de una serie de casos seleccionada.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 was declared pandemic by March 2020. Clinical, analytical, and radiological findings have been reported. Detailed different evolution of patients of the same local outbreak has been scarcely reported. We report 6 selected cases of such an evolution. CLINICAL CASES: The clinical, radiological, analytical evolution of 6 patients is reported. Patients were selected as it were epidemiological close contacts, and showed particular different clinical evolution. RESULTS: The clinical course at the start of infection (first week) was similar among patients. In relationship with clinical evolution, middle to severe course were related with inflammation markers levels evolution (D-dimer, IL-6, ferritin, lymphocytes count, etc.). Specially lung alterations were observed, but neurological/neuropsychiatric findings are still common. In evolution, 2 patients showed middle symptoms, but the 2 most severely affected died. CONCLUSIONS: It remains to be elucidated the different evolutive pathways and outcomes of COVD-19. In our 6 patients of the same local outbreak, clinical, laboratory and radiological features were different. We discuss some aspects of the pathophysiology of the disease, other than the widely described of the respiratory system.

SARS-CoV-2 infection. Descriptive analysis of a selected case series. / Infección por SARS-CoV-2. Análisis descriptivo de una serie de casos seleccionada.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 was declared pandemic by March 2020. Clinical, analytical, and radiological findings have been reported. Detailed different evolution of patients of the same local outbreak has been scarcely reported. We report 6 selected cases of such an evolution. CLINICAL CASES: The clinical, radiological, analytical evolution of 6patients is reported. Patients were selected as it were epidemiological close contacts, and showed particular different clinical evolution. RESULTS: The clinical course at the start of infection (first week) was similar among patients. In relationship with clinical evolution, middle to severe course were related with inflammation markers levels evolution (D-dimer, IL-6, ferritin, lymphocytes count, etc.). Specially lung alterations were observed, but neurological/neuropsychiatric findings are still common. In evolution, 2patients showed middle symptoms, but the 2most severely affected died. CONCLUSIONS: It remains to be elucidated the different evolutive pathways and outcomes of COVD-19. In our 6patients of the same local outbreak, clinical, laboratory and radiological features were different. We discuss some aspects of the pathophysiology of the disease, other than the widely described of the respiratory system.

Effect of an individualized versus standard pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy on postoperative recovery: a randomized clinical trial in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain whether individualization of pneumoperitoneum pressures during laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative recovery. This study compared an individualized pneumoperitoneum pressure (IPP) strategy with a standard pneumoperitoneum pressure (SPP) strategy with respect to postoperative recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: This was a multicentre RCT. The IPP strategy comprised modified patient positioning, deep neuromuscular blockade, and abdominal wall prestretching targeting the lowest intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) that maintained acceptable workspace. The SPP strategy comprised patient positioning according to the surgeon's preference, moderate neuromuscular blockade and a fixed IAP of 12 mmHg. The primary endpoint was physiological postoperative recovery, assessed by means of the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale. Secondary endpoints included recovery in other domains and overall recovery, the occurrence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, duration of hospital stay, and plasma markers of inflammation up to postoperative day 3. RESULTS: Of 166 patients, 85 received an IPP strategy and 81 an SPP strategy. The IPP strategy was associated with a higher probability of physiological recovery (odds ratio (OR) 2·77, 95 per cent c.i. 1·19 to 6·40, P = 0·017; risk ratio (RR) 1·82, 1·79 to 1·87, P = 0·049). The IPP strategy was also associated with a higher probability of emotional (P = 0·013) and overall (P = 0·011) recovery. Intraoperative adverse events were less frequent with the IPP strategy (P < 0·001) and the plasma neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio was lower (P = 0·029). Other endpoints were not affected. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery, an IPP strategy was associated with faster recovery, fewer intraoperative complications and less inflammation than an SPP strategy. Registration number: NCT02773173 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

ANTECEDENTES: No se sabe con certeza si individualizar las presiones del neumoperitoneo durante la cirugía laparoscópica mejora la recuperación postoperatoria. Comparamos una estrategia con individualización de la presión del neumoperitoneo (individualised pneumoperitoneum pressure, IPP) frente a una estrategia con presión estándar del neumoperitoneo (standard pneumoperitoneum pressure, SPP) respecto a la recuperación postoperatoria tras cirugía colorrectal laparoscópica. MÉTODOS: Ensayo clínico aleatorizado multicéntrico. La estrategia IPP consistió en una modificación de la posición, bloqueo neuromuscular profundo, y una distensión de la pared abdominal conseguida con la presión intraabdominal (intra-abdominal pressure, IAP) más baja en la que el espacio quirúrgico operativo siguiera siendo aceptable. La estrategia SPP consistió en una posición de acuerdo con la preferencia del cirujano, bloqueo neuromuscular moderado, e IAP fija de 12 mm Hg. El resultado primario fue la recuperación fisiológica postoperatoria, evaluada mediante la escala de calidad en la recuperación postoperatoria (Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale, PQRS). Los resultados secundarios incluyeron la recuperación en otros dominios y la recuperación global, la aparición de complicaciones intraoperatorias y postoperatorias, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, y los valores de los marcadores inflamatorios séricos durante tres días postoperatorios. RESULTADOS: De un total de 166 pacientes, 85 recibieron una estrategia IPP y 81 una estrategia SPP. La estrategia IPP se asoció con una elevada probabilidad de recuperación fisiológica (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio OR, 2,8 (i.c. del 95% 1,2-6,4); P = 0,017, razón de riesgo, 1,8 (i.c. del 95% 1,7-1,9), P = 0,05)). La estrategia IPP también se asoció con una elevada probabilidad de recuperación emotiva (P = 0,013) y global (P = 0,011). Los eventos adversos intraoperatorios fueron menos frecuentes con la estrategia IPP (P < 0,001) y la tasa neutrófilo-linfocito fue más baja (P = 0,029). No se observaron cambios en otras variables. CONCLUSIÓN: En esta cohorte de pacientes sometidos a cirugía colorrectal laparoscópica, una estrategia IPP se asoció con una recuperación más rápida, menos complicaciones intraoperatorias y menos inflamación en comparación con una estrategia SPP.

Correction to: An individualised versus a conventional pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy during colorectal laparoscopic surgery: rationale and study protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical study.

After publication of our article [1] the authors have notified us that there are changes in the primary outcome and the statistical analysis plan of the study.

An individualised versus a conventional pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy during colorectal laparoscopic surgery: rationale and study protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical study.

BACKGROUND: A recent study shows that a multifaceted strategy using an individualised intra-abdominal pressure titration strategy during colorectal laparoscopic surgery results in an acceptable workspace at low intra-abdominal pressure in most patients. The multifaceted strategy, focused on lower to individualised intra-abdominal pressures, includes prestretching the abdominal wall during initial insufflation, deep neuromuscular blockade, low tidal volume ventilation settings and a modified lithotomy position. The study presented here tests the hypothesis that this strategy improves outcomes of patients scheduled for colorectal laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: The Individualized Pneumoperitoneum Pressure in Colorectal Laparoscopic Surgery versus Standard Therapy (IPPCollapse-II) study is a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, single-blinded randomised 1:1 clinical study that runs in four academic hospitals in Spain. Patients scheduled for colorectal laparoscopic surgery with American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I to III who are aged > 18 years and are without cognitive deficits are randomised to an individualised pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy (the intervention group) or to a conventional pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy (the control group). The primary outcome is recovery assessed with the Post-operative Quality of Recovery Scale (PQRS) at postoperative day 1. Secondary outcomes include PQRS score in the post anaesthesia care unit and at postoperative day 3, postoperative complications until postoperative day 28, hospital length of stay and process-related outcomes. DISCUSSION: The IPPCollapse-II study will be the first randomised clinical study that assesses the impact of an individualised pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy focused on working with the lowest intra-abdominal pressure during colorectal laparoscopic surgery on relevant patient-centred outcomes. The results of this large study, to be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in international peer-reviewed journals, are of ultimate importance for optimising the care and safety of laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Selection of patient-reported outcomes as the primary outcome of this study facilitates the translation into clinical practice. Access to source data will be made available through anonymised datasets upon request and after agreement of the Steering Committee of the IPPCollapse-II study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02773173 . Registered on 16 May 2016. EudraCT, 2016-001693-15. Registered on 8 August 2016.

Cómo escribir un artículo original / How to write an original article

Contexto: Un artículo original correctamente redactado informa sobre lo que se hizo, por qué se hizo, cómo se hizo, qué resultó de lo que se hizo y qué significa lo que se hizo. Muchos artículos no son capaces de comunicar sus resultados de forma eficaz. Objetivo: Describir las características de las partes de un artículo original y dar recomendaciones prácticas para evitar los errores más comunes en muestro medio. Adquisición de la evidencia: Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de los términos "cómo escribir un artículo científico", "estructura del artículo original" y "publicar un artículo" en las bases de datos PubMed y SCOPUS. Se analizó la estructura de un artículo original y las características de sus partes y se elaboraron consejos para la publicación de un artículo. Síntesis de la evidencia: Deben leerse las guías para autores de la revista. Habitualmente, el artículo original sigue la estructura IMRAD: Introducción, Métodos, Resultados y Discusión. La introducción expone concisamente por qué se hizo el trabajo. En la sección de métodos es necesaria una explicación detallada de cómo se realizó el trabajo. Los resultados deben exponerse de forma clara, ayudándose de tablas sin repetir información. La discusión explica la relevancia de los resultados y los contrasta con los obtenidos por otros autores. Deben incluirse las limitaciones y una conclusión respaldada por los resultados. Conclusiones: Escribir un artículo original correctamente requiere práctica. Para que sea publicado debe estar respaldado por un buen trabajo de investigación

Context: A correctly drafted original article gives information on what was done, why it was done, how it was done, the result of what was done, and the significance of what was done. Many articles fail to report their results effectively. Objective: To describe the characteristics of an original article and to give practical recommendations to prevent the most common errors in our environment. Evidence acquisition: We performed a systematic search of the terms "how to write a scientific article", "structure of the original article" and "publishing an article" in the databases PubMed and SCOPUS. We analysed the structure of an original article and the characteristics of its parts and prepared advice on the publication of an article. Evidence synthesis: The journal's guidelines for authors should be read. It is usual for the original article to follow the IMRAD structure: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. The introduction states briefly why the study was performed. The methods' section should give a detailed explanation of how the study was performed. The results should be clearly presented, with the help of tables, without repeating information. The discussion explains the relevance of the results and contrasts them with those of other authors. Any limitations and a conclusion supported by the results must be included. Conclusions: Writing an original article correctly requires practice and it must be supported by a good research work in order to be published

How to write an original article. / Cómo escribir un artículo original.

CONTEXT: A correctly drafted original article gives information on what was done, why it was done, how it was done, the result of what was done, and the significance of what was done. Many articles fail to report their results effectively. OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of an original article and to give practical recommendations to prevent the most common errors in our environment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a systematic search of the terms "how to write a scientific article", "structure of the original article" and "publishing an article" in the databases PubMed and SCOPUS. We analysed the structure of an original article and the characteristics of its parts and prepared advice on the publication of an article. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The journal's guidelines for authors should be read. It is usual for the original article to follow the IMRAD structure: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. The introduction states briefly why the study was performed. The methods' section should give a detailed explanation of how the study was performed. The results should be clearly presented, with the help of tables, without repeating information. The discussion explains the relevance of the results and contrasts them with those of other authors. Any limitations and a conclusion supported by the results must be included. CONCLUSIONS: Writing an original article correctly requires practice and it must be supported by a good research work in order to be published.

The fragility of statistically significant findings in randomised controlled anaesthesiology trials: systematic review of the medical literature.

The fragility index (FI), the number of events the statistical significance a result depends on, and the number of patients lost to follow-up are important parameters for interpreting randomised clinical trial results. We evaluated these two parameters in randomised controlled trials in anaesthesiology. For this, we performed a systematic search of the medical literature, seeking articles reporting on anaesthesiology trials with a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome and published in the top five general medicine journals, or the top 15 anaesthesiology journals. We restricted the analysis to trials reporting clinically important primary outcome measures. The search identified 139 articles, 35 published in general medicine journals and 104 in anaesthesiology journals. The median (inter-quartile range) sample size was 150 (70-300) patients. The FI was 4 (2-17) and 3 (2-7), and the number of patients lost to follow-up was 0 (0-18) and 0 (0-6) patients in trials published in general medicine and anaesthesiology journals, respectively. The number of patients lost to follow-up exceeded the FI in 41 and 27% in trials in general medicine journals and anaesthesiology journals, respectively. The FI positively correlated with sample size and number of primary outcome events, and negatively correlated with the reported P-values. The results of this systematic review suggest that statistically significant differences in randomised controlled anaesthesiology trials are regularly fragile, implying that the primary outcome status of patients lost to follow-up could possibly have changed the reported effect.

Repeated sugammadex reversal of muscle relaxation during lumbar spine surgery with intraoperative neurophysiological multimodal monitoring.

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spine surgery is usually acomplished avoiding muscle relaxants. A case of intraoperative sugammadex partial reversal of the neuromuscular blockade allowing adequate monitoring during spine surgery is presented. A 38 year-old man was scheduled for discectomy and vertebral arthrodesis throughout anterior and posterior approaches. Anesthesia consisted of total intravenous anesthesia plus rocuronium. Intraoperatively monitoring was needed, and the muscle relaxant reverted twice with low dose sugammadex in order to obtain adequate responses. The doses of sugammadex used were conservatively selected (0.1mg/kg boluses increases, total dose needed 0.4mg/kg). Both motor evoqued potentials, and electromyographic responses were deemed adequate by the neurophysiologist. If muscle relaxation was needed in the context described, this approach could be useful to prevent neurological sequelae. This is the first study using very low dose sugammadex to reverse rocuronium intraoperatively and to re-establish the neuromuscular blockade.

Instrumentación transuretral en portadores de esfínter urinario artificial. Presentación y discusión de tres casos clínicos / Transurethral instrumentation in patients with artificial urinary sphincter. Presentation and discussion of three clinical cases

El tratamiento para la incontinencia urinaria masculina de esfuerzo severa es la colocación de un esfínter urinario artificial (EUA). La etiología de la incontinencia con frecuencia es la cirugía prostática previa. Los resultados funcionales son buenos con una tasa aceptable de complicaciones. Las complicaciones son más frecuentes si existe radioterapia previa o se realizan procedimientos transuretrales sin tener en cuenta la presencia del manguito del EUA. Cuando es necesaria la cirugía transuretral, por ejemplo por tumor vesical, es necesario realizar el desabrochado del manguito esfinteriano. Los sondajes uretrales precisan también desactivar el manguito y manipular la uretra con sumo cuidado, evitando su manipulación siempre que sea posible. Se presentan tres casos muy complejos de pacientes portadores de EUA que han precisado diversas soluciones ante manipulación uretral y presencia de complicaciones como estenosis de uretra (AU)

Artificial urinary sphincter (AS) is the gold standard treatment for severe male urinary stress incontinence. The etiology of incontinence is often previous prostate surgery as a radical prostatectomy. Functional results are good with an acceptable rate of complications. If there is prior radiotherapy complications are more frequent. When transurethral surgery, for example for bladder tumor is needed, it is necessary unbuttoned the sleeve. Urethral soundings need also turn off the sleeve and manipulate the urethra carefully, avoiding handling whenever possible. We present three very complex cases of patients with US showing several solutions to urethral manipulation and to resolve complications such as urethral perforation and stricture (AU)