[Old and New Regional Anesthesia Procedures Under Review - Abdomen to Toe]. / Alte und neue Regionalanästhesieverfahren unter Review ­ Bauch bis Fußzehe.

Ultrasound (US) technology has significantly expanded the spectrum of regional anesthesiological procedures in recent years. Abdominal wall blocks are becoming an increasingly integral part of a multimodal postoperative pain concept after abdominal surgery, gynecological or urological interventions. Thoracic epidural analgesia remains the gold standard for extensive surgery. The requirement for rapid postoperative mobilization and discharge after lower extremity surgery has led to the abandonment of neuroaxial or plexus blocks in favor of selective, peripheral blocks such as the PENG block or adductor canal block. The following article is intended to show the reader the change in the use of regional anesthesiological procedures for abdominal wall and lower extremity blocks using selected blockages.

[Common and New Regional Anaesthesia Techniques Under Review - From Head to Abdomen]. / Alte und neue Regionalanästhesieverfahren unter Review ­ Kopf bis Bauch.

By implementation of sonography regional anesthesia became more relevant in the daily practice of anesthesia and pain therapy. Due to visualized needle guidance ultrasound supports more safety during needle placement. Thereby new truncal blocks got enabled. Next to the blocking of specific nerve structures, plane blocks got established which can also be described as interfascial compartment blocks. The present review illustrates published and established blocks in daily practice concerning indications and the procedural issues. Moreover, the authors explain potential risks, complications and dosing of local anesthetics.

Uso del contenido de fluido torácico para la predicción del balance hídrico y las complicaciones pulmonares postoperatorias tras cirugía abdominal mayor / Use of thoracic fluid content for prediction of fluid balance and postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery: An observational study

Antecedentes y objetivos: Los efectos nocivos del exceso de líquidos se manifiestan frecuentemente en los pulmones. El contenido de fluido torácico (thoracic fluid content [TFC]) es una variable que proporciona el monitor por biorreactancia STARLING™, que representa el volumen total de líquido en el tórax. El objetivo es analizar la asociación entre la variación de los valores del TFC (TFCd0%) a las 24horas postoperatorias, el balance hídrico postoperatorio y las complicaciones pulmonares postoperatorias. Material y métodos: Estudio observacional prospectivo y analítico. Se incluyeron pacientes programados para cirugía abdominal mayor en un hospital universitario de tercer nivel. Fueron monitorizados durante la intervención y las 24 primeras horas postoperatorias con el monitor STARLING™, midiendo el TFC y su variación en distintas etapas del perioperatorio. Se realizaron ecografías pulmonares seriadas y se recogieron las complicaciones pulmonares postoperatorias. Se realizó una regresión logística para predecir la aparición de atelectasias y congestión pulmonar. Se calculó el coeficiente de correlación de Pearson para comprobar la asociación entre TFC y balance hídrico. Resultados: Se analizaron 50 pacientes. El TFCd0% medido en la mañana del primer día postoperatorio aumentó una mediana del 27,1% [IQR: 20,3-37,5] y se correlacionó con una r=0,44 con el balance postoperatorio de 677ml [IQR: 125,5-1.412]. El aumento del TFC se relacionó con un mayor riesgo de sufrir atelectasias (OR=1,24) y congestión pulmonar (OR=1,3). Conclusiones: El TFCd0% medido a las 24horas de la cirugía presenta una correlación moderada con el balance hídrico postoperatorio. Su incremento es un factor de riesgo para la aparición de complicaciones pulmonares postoperatorias.(AU)

Background and objectives: The harmful effects of excess fluids frequently manifest in the lungs. Thoracic fluid content (TFC) is a variable provided by the STARLINGTM bioreactance monitor, which represents the total volume of fluid in the chest. The objective is to analyze the association between the variation in TFC values (TFCd0%) at 24 hours postoperatively, postoperative fluid balance, and postoperative pulmonary complications. Material and methods: Prospective and analytical observational study. Patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery at a tertiary teaching hospital were included. They were monitored during the intervention and the first 24 postoperative hours with the monitor. STARLINGTM, measuring TFC and its variation in different stages of the perioperative period. Serial lung ultrasounds were performed and postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded. Logistic regression was performed to predict the occurrence of atelectasis and pulmonary congestion. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to verify the association between TFC and water balance. Results: 50 patients were analyzed. TFCd0% measured on the morning of the first postoperative day increased by a median of 27.1% [IQR: 20.3-37.5] and was correlated at r=0.44 with the postoperative balance of 677 ml [IQR: 125.5-1,412]. Increased TFC was related to a higher risk of atelectasis (OR=1.24) and pulmonary congestion (OR=1.3). Conclusions: TFCd0% measured 24 hours after surgery presents a moderate correlation with postoperative fluid balance. Its increase is a risk factor for the appearance of postoperative pulmonary complications.(AU)

Association of risk analysis index with 90-day failure to rescue following major abdominal surgery in geriatric patients.

BACKGROUND: Failure to rescue (FTR) is a quality metric defined as mortality after potentially preventable complications after surgery. Predicting patients who are at the highest risk of mortality after a complication may aid in preventing deaths. Thirty-day follow-up period inadequately captures postoperative deaths; alternatively, a 90-day follow-up period has been advocated. This study aimed to examine the association of a validated frailty metric, the risk analysis index (RAI), with 90-day FTR (FTR-90). METHODS: Patients aged ≥65 years who underwent a major abdominal operation between 2014 and 2020 at a quaternary care center were abstracted. Institutional data were merged with the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) and Geriatric Surgery Research File variables. The association between RAI and FTR-90 was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 398 patients with postoperative complications were included. Fifty-two patients (13.1%) died during the 90-day follow-up. The FTR-90 group was older (median age: 76 vs 73 years, respectively; P = .002), had a greater preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score (P < .001), and had a higher ACS NSQIP estimated risk of morbidity (0.33% vs 0.20%, P < .001) and mortality (0.067% vs 0.012%, P < .001). The FTR-90 group had a greater median RAI score (23 vs 19; P = .002). The RAI score was independently associated with FTR-90 (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.0042-1.0770; P = .028) but not with FTR-30 (P = .13). CONCLUSION: Preoperative frailty, as defined by RAI, is independently associated with FTR at 90-day follow-up. FTR-90 captured nearly 60% more deaths than did FTR-30. Frailty has major implications beyond the typical 30-day follow-up period, and a longer follow-up period must be considered.

Damage Control Laparotomy and Management of the Open Abdomen.

Management of the open abdomen has been used for decades by general surgeons. Techniques have evolved over those decades to improve control of infection, fluid loss, and improve the ability to close the abdomen to avoid hernia formation. The authors explore the history, indications, and techniques of open abdomen management in multiple settings. The most important considerations in open abdomen management include the reason for leaving the abdomen open, prevention and mitigation of ongoing organ dysfunction, and eventual plans for abdominal closure.

[Treatment of abdominal lipocutaneous excess in massive weight loss patients]. / Traitement de l'excès cutanéo-adipeux abdominal après perte de poids massive.

In massive weight loss patients, abdominal lipocutaneous excess is a frequently encountered complication with major psychological, medical and functional consequences. A wide variety of corrective techniques exists, each with its advantages and side effects, and the choice of the technique must be made in conjunction with the patient, taking into account his unique anatomy, his wishes and his risk factors, in order to obtain the best aesthetic result while minimising the per- and post-operative complications. Liposuction, if prudently executed with the correct technique, permits a further harmonisation of the body contour in zones not reached by the surgical correction, representing a very useful and efficient additional tool.

L'excès cutanéo-adipeux abdominal est une conséquence très fréquente chez les patients après une perte de poids massive, avec d'importantes répercussions psychologiques, médicales et fonctionnelles. Plusieurs techniques de correction des déformations existent, avec leurs avantages et complications spécifiques. Le choix doit être individualisé et partagé avec le patient sur la base de ses caractéristiques anatomiques uniques, de ses souhaits et de ses facteurs de risque, pour un résultat esthétique optimal avec une minimisation des complications. La liposuccion, lorsqu'elle est effectuée de façon prudente et selon les règles de l'art, est un outil additionnel très efficace pour une harmonisation des contours dans les zones non directement ciblées par l'intervention choisie.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Analgesic Effects of Lidocaine Administered Intravenously or Intraperitoneally Post-Abdominal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Reducing postoperative pain is still a tremendous challenge for perioperative clinicians. Lidocaine is a local anesthetic that belongs to the amide class and has anti-inflammatory, anti-hyperalgesic, and analgesic effects. Extensive research has been conducted to determine the optimal route for its administration. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of perioperative intravenous lidocaine with that of intraperitoneal lidocaine on postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. STUDY DESIGN: EMBASE, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials published through December 2022 that compared patients receiving perioperative intravenous lidocaine with those receiving intraperitoneal lidocaine. The primary outcome measures included the pain score, as evaluated by the Visual Analog Scale, and opioid analgesia requirements. The secondary outcome measures were hospitalization length, gastrointestinal function recovery, etc. The data were acquired and recorded in electronic spreadsheets that had been designed for this purpose. METHODS: This systematic review's design was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to examine the certainty of the evidence. Furthermore, we examined the dependability of the calculated (favorable) treatment effects through considerations of information size and modified significance thresholds (trial sequential analysis). RESULTS: Seven trials including 478 patients were included. Our meta-analysis demonstrates that compared with intravenous lidocaine, patients who received intraperitoneal lidocaine had lower pain scores at 4 hours (mean difference [MD] 1.40; 95% CI, 0.22 to 2.59); 12 hours (MD 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30); and 24 hours (MD -0.12; 95% CI -0.40 to 0.17) postsurgery. However, no obvious difference in opioid consumption (P > 0.05) was found. In addition, the intraperitoneal lidocaine group had a longer postsurgery hospital stay than the intravenous lidocaine group (95%CI, -0.17 to -0.00; I2 = 0%). Intravenous lidocaine was more beneficial for achieving gastrointestinal return than intraperitoneal lidocaine (95% CI, -0.26 to -0.10; I2 = 2%). LIMITATIONS: The sample size of enrolled RCTs was small, which could potentially result in an overestimation or underestimation of the treatment effect in the collected data. There was high heterogeneity among the studies. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that post-abdominal surgery intraperitoneal lidocaine administration has a better analgesic effect than intravenous lidocaine, with a lower pain score. However, intravenous lidocaine is more beneficial for gastrointestinal recovery after abdominal surgery.

Laparoscopic or open abdominal surgery with thoracotomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: ROMIO randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated if hybrid oesophagectomy with minimally invasive gastric mobilization and thoracotomy enabled faster recovery than open surgery. METHODS: In eight UK centres, this pragmatic RCT recruited patients for oesophagectomy to treat localized cancer. Participants were randomly allocated to hybrid or open surgery, stratified by centre and receipt of neoadjuvant treatment. Large dressings aimed to mask patients to their allocation for six days post-surgery. The authors present the intention-to-treat analysis of outcome measures from the first 3 months post-randomization, including the primary outcome, the patient-reported physical function scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30, and cost-effectiveness. Current Controlled Trials registration: ISRCTN 59036820 (feasibility study), 10386621 (definitive study). FINDINGS: There was no evidence of a difference between hybrid (n = 267) and open (n = 266) surgery in average physical function over 3 months post-randomization: difference in means 2.1, 95% c.i. -2.0 to 6.2, P = 0.3. Complication rates were similar; for example, 88 (34%) participants in the open and 82 (32%) participants in the hybrid surgery groups experienced a pulmonary infection within 30 days. There was no evidence that hybrid surgery was more cost-effective than open surgery at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported physical function in the 3 months post-randomization provided no evidence of a difference in recovery time between hybrid and open surgery, or a difference in cost-effectiveness. Both approaches to surgery were completed safely, with a similar risk of key complications, suggesting that surgeons who have a preference for one of the two approaches need not change their practice.

Emergency hybrid surgery for transection of pancreas at the head and neck after blunt abdominal trauma: A case report and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: A complete disruption of main pancreatic duct (MPD) presents a significant challenge to the surgeon. Historically, the standard surgical approach for addressing a complete disruption of the MPD involved distal pancreatic resection and pancreaticojejunostomy Roux-en-Y anastomosis. Nevertheless, there have been no reported cases of hybrid surgery being employed for the complete disruption of the MPD. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 63-year-old male patient presented with blunt trauma in the upper abdomen and was transferred to our trauma center 10 hours after injury. Upon arrival at the emergency department, he was conscious, hemodynamically stable, and complained of upper abdominal pain and distention. Physical examination revealed right upper abdominal tenderness and slight abdominal tension. Abdominal contrast-enhanced CT scan revealed a complete transection of pancreatic parenchyma at the junction of the head and neck. DIAGNOSES: Complete transection of pancreatic parenchyma at the junction of the head and neck combined with complete disruption of the MPD, AIS grade IV. INTERVENTIONS: The hybrid surgery was initially utilized for complete MPD disruption, incorporating endoscope-assisted stent placement in the MPD along with primary repair of the pancreatic parenchyma and duct. OUTCOMES: The postoperative period went smoothly, and the patient recovered and was discharged 4 weeks after operation. The MPD stent was removed under endoscope 4 months after operation, and Endoscopic Retrograde Pancreatography examination showed that the MPD was patency and slight MPD stenosis without pancreatic leakage. At the most recent follow-up, the patient had returned to normal life and work without any pancreatic endocrine or exocrine dysfunction. LESSONS: The hybrid surgery, incorporating endoscope-assisted MPD stent placement and primary repair of the pancreatic parenchyma and duct, emerges as a promising alternative for complete MPD disruption in hemodynamically stable patients. The challenge in this hybrid surgery is the precise localization of the distal end of the MPD.

The impact of prehabilitation on outcomes in frail and high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Prehabilitation comprises multidisciplinary preoperative interventions including exercise, nutritional optimisation and psychological preparation aimed at improving surgical outcomes. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the impact of prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes in frail and high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Embase, Medline, CINAHAL and Cochrane databases were searched from January 2010 to January 2023 for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating unimodal (exercise) or multimodal prehabilitation programmes. Meta-analysis was limited to length of stay (primary end point), severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥ Grade 3) and the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). The analysis was performed using RevMan v5.4 software. RESULTS: Sixteen studies (6 RCTs, 10 observational) reporting on 3339 patients (1468 prehabilitation group, 1871 control group) were included. The median (interquartile range) age was 74.0 (71.0-78.4) years. Multimodal prehabilitation was applied in fifteen studies and unimodal in one. Meta-analysis of nine studies showed a reduction in hospital length of stay (weighted mean difference -1.07 days, 95 % CI -1.60 to -0.53 days, P < 0.0001, I2 = 19 %). Ten studies addressed severe complications and a meta-analysis suggested a decline in occurrence by up to 44 % (odds ratio 0.56, 95 % CI 0.37 to 0.82, P < 0.004, I2 = 51 %). Four studies provided data on preoperative 6MWT. The pooled weighted mean difference was 40.1 m (95 % CI 32.7 to 47.6 m, P < 0.00001, I2 = 24 %), favouring prehabilitation. CONCLUSION: Given the significant impact on shortening length of stay and reducing severe complications, prehabilitation should be encouraged in frail, older and high-risk adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.

First mobilisation after abdominal and cardiothoracic surgery: when is it actually performed? A national, multicentre, cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Knowledge of clinical practice regarding mobilisation after surgery is lacking. This study therefore aimed to reveal current mobilisation routines after abdominal and cardiothoracic surgery and to identify factors associated with mobilisation within 6 hours postoperatively. DESIGN: A prospective observational national multicentre study. SETTING: 18 different hospitals in Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: 1492 adult patients undergoing abdominal and cardiothoracic surgery with duration of anaesthesia>2 hours. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Primary outcome was time to first postoperative mobilisation. Secondary outcomes were the type and duration of the first mobilisation. Data were analysed using multivariate logistic regression and general structural equation modelling, and data are presented as ORs with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Among the included patients, 52% were mobilised to at least sitting on the edge of the bed within 6 hours, 70% within 12 hours and 96% within 24 hours. Besides sitting on the edge of the bed, 76% stood up by the bed and 22% were walking away from the bedside the first time they were mobilised. Patients undergoing major upper abdominal surgery required the longest time before mobilisation with an average time of 11 hours post surgery. Factors associated with increased likelihood of mobilisation within 6 hours of surgery were daytime arrival at the postoperative recovery unit (OR: 5.13, 95% CI: 2.16 to 12.18), anaesthesia <4 hours (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.17 to 2.40) and American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification 1-2, (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.13 to 2.36). CONCLUSIONS: In total, 96% if the patients were mobilised within 24 hours after surgery and 52% within 6 hours. Daytime arrival at the postoperative recovery unit, low ASA classification and shorter duration of anaesthesia were associated with a shorter time to mobilisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: FoU, Forskning och Utveckling in VGR, Vastra Gotaland Region (Id:275357) and Clinical Trials (NCT04729634).

Abdominal donor-site complications following autologous breast reconstruction: A multi-institutional multisurgeon study.

BACKGROUND: The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flap is the gold standard procedure for autologous breast reconstruction. Although breast-related complications have been well described, donor-site complications and contributing patient risk factors are poorly understood. METHODS: We examined a multi-institutional, prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing DIEP free flap breast reconstruction between 2015 and 2020. We evaluated patient demographics, operative details, and abdominal donor-site complications. Logistic regression modeling was used to predict donor-site outcomes based on patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 661 patients were identified who underwent DIEP free flap breast reconstruction across multiple institutions. Using logistic regression modeling, we found that body mass index (BMI) was an independent risk factor for umbilical complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.18, p = 0.001), seroma (OR 1.07, CI 1.01-1.13, p = 0.003), wound dehiscence (OR 1.10, CI 1.06-1.15, p = 0.001), and surgical site infection (OR 1.10, CI 1.05-1.15, p = 0.001) following DIEP free flap breast reconstruction. Further, immediate reconstruction decreases the risk of abdominal bulge formation (OR 0.22, CI 0.108-0.429, p = 0.001). Perforator selection was not associated with abdominal morbidity in our study population. CONCLUSIONS: Higher BMI is associated with increased abdominal donor-site complications following DIEP free flap breast reconstruction. Efforts to lower preoperative BMI may help decrease donor-site complications.

The Pedicled Anterolateral Thigh Flap as a Versatile Option for Resurfacing Extensive Lower Trunk Defects.

BACKGROUND: The resurfacing of large abdominal and perineal defects is a major concern, and it poses a great challenge to the reconstructive surgeon. The main target in the reconstruction of the abdomen is to ensure a stable soft-tissue cover, and a strong and reliable fascia to prevent hernia recurrence and fecal contamination. The pedicled anterolateral thigh flap (ALT) either in the myocutaneous or fasciocutaneous form is a work-horse for the closure of abdominal and perineal defects. AIM: There is a paucity of studies on the use of the anterolateral thigh flap among black Africans especially in Nigeria; hence, we present our experience with the use of this flap for extensive abdominal and perineal defects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The folders of all patients who had pedicled anterolateral thigh flap between January 2019 and July 2022 in our institution were reviewed. The patients' demographic data and the available details about the flap reconstruction were extracted from the folders. RESULTS: There were three males and two females, and the age range was between 22 and 48 years. Four cases resulted from tumor extirpation, while one was following extensive necrotizing fasciitis of the lower anterior abdominal wall. No gross anatomical variations were encountered intraoperatively. Four flaps had full survival, while one had marginal flap tip loss. CONCLUSION: The pedicled anterolateral thigh flap is an excellent reconstructive tool for the coverage of extensive abdominal and perineal defects.

Does practice make perfect? The impact of hospital and surgeon volume on complications after intra-abdominal procedures.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the regionalization of surgical procedures. However, evidence on the volume-outcome relationship for emergency intra-abdominal surgery is not well-synthesized. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarize evidence regarding the impact of hospital and surgeon volume on complications. METHODS: We identified cohort studies assessing the impact of hospital/surgeon volume on postoperative complications after emergency intra-abdominal procedures, with data collected after the year 2000 through a literature search without language restriction in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. A weighted overall complication rate was calculated, and a random effect regression model was used for a summary odds ratio. A sensitivity analysis with the removal of studies contributing to heterogeneity was performed (PROSPERO: CRD42022358879). RESULTS: The search yielded 2,153 articles, of which 9 cohort studies were included and determined to be good quality according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. These studies reported outcomes for the following procedures: cholecystectomy, colectomy, appendectomy, small bowel resection, peptic ulcer repair, adhesiolysis, laparotomy, and hernia repair. Eight studies (2,358,093 patients) with available data were included in the meta-analysis. Low hospital volume was not significantly associated with higher complications. In the sensitivity analysis, low hospital volume was significantly associated with higher complications when appropriate heterogeneity was achieved. Low surgeon volume was associated with higher complications, and these findings remained consistent in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: We found that hospital and surgeon volume was significantly associated with higher complications in patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery when appropriate heterogeneity was achieved.

Blood loss quantification during major abdominal surgery: prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Blood loss during major abdominal surgery is an essential parameter in the evaluation of strategies aimed at reducing perioperative bleeding. However, blood loss quantification remains unreliable and inaccurate. The aim of this study was to compare several methods of blood loss quantification-visual estimation by surgeon and anesthesiologist, the gravimetric method, the calculation method with spectrophotometric measurement. The spectrophotometric measurement is considered as the most accurate method. METHODS: The study was designed as a prospective observational cohort single-center study. We analyzed 61 patients who underwent elective liver or pancreatic resection. The anesthesiologists' and surgeons' estimate of blood loss was based on a visual assessment. The gravimetric method was based on weighing the suction canister and surgical drapes before and after use. The basis of calculation method was anthropometric and hematological parameters, we used López-Picado's formula. The spectrophotometric method was based on the spectrophotometric determination of hemoglobin mass in the lost blood. We compared the methods using paired t-test, non-parametric Wilcoxon test and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Visual estimation by surgeons and anesthesiologists, gravimetric measurement, and calculation method were significantly different from spectrophotometric measurement at the significance level α = 0.05. All methods overestimated blood loss which was measured by spectrophotometric method. The estimate by surgeons was the closest to the spectrophotometric measurement, difference 68.7 ml (95% confidence interval [CI]: -129.3--8.2). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the estimate of blood loss by surgeons and anesthesiologists, as well as gravimetric method and calculation method are all significantly inaccurate in real surgical setting. We did not confirm the commonly accepted assumption that surgeons underestimate the blood loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered under the title " Blood Loss Quantification During Major Abdominal Surgery" at ClinicalTrials.gov with the registration number NCT05316649. Date of the first registration was 20/3/2022.

Deep neuromuscular blockade in adults undergoing an abdominal laparoscopic procedure.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery is the preferred option for many procedures. To properly perform laparoscopic surgery, it is essential that sudden movements and abdominal contractions in patients are prevented, as it limits the surgeon's view. There has been a growing interest in the potential beneficial effect of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) in laparoscopic surgery. Deep NMB improves the surgical field by preventing abdominal contractions, and it is thought to decrease postoperative pain. However, it is uncertain if deep NMB improves intraoperative safety and thereby improves clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of deep neuromuscular blockade versus no, shallow, or moderate neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 July 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults undergoing laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures comparing deep NMB to moderate, shallow, or no NMB. We excluded trials that did not report any of the primary or secondary outcomes of our review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. health-related quality of life, and 3. proportion of participants with serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. proportion of participants with non-serious adverse events, 5. readmissions within three months, 6. short-term pain scores, 7. measurements of postoperative recovery, and 8. operating time. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 randomised clinical trials with 3898 participants. Most trials included participants undergoing intraperitoneal oncological resection surgery. We present the Peto fixed-effect model for most dichotomous outcomes as only sparse events were reported. Comparison 1: deep versus moderate NMB Thirty-eight trials compared deep versus moderate NMB. Deep NMB may have no effect on mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 115.43; 12 trials, 1390 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life up to four days postoperative (mean difference (MD) 4.53 favouring deep NMB on the Quality of Recovery-40 score, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.09; 5 trials, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; mean difference lower than the mean clinically important difference of 10 points). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB on intraoperatively serious adverse events (deep NMB 38/1150 versus moderate NMB 38/1076; Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.52; 21 trials, 2231 participants; very low-certainty evidence), short-term serious adverse events (up to 60 days) (deep NMB 37/912 versus moderate NMB 42/852; Peto OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42; 16 trials, 1764 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and short-term non-serious adverse events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.35; 11 trials, 1232 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely does not alter the duration of surgery (MD -0.51 minutes, 95% CI -3.35 to 2.32; 34 trials, 3143 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if deep NMB alters the length of hospital stay (MD -0.22 days, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.06; 19 trials, 2084 participants; low-certainty evidence) or pain scores one hour after surgery (MD -0.31 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.03; 22 trials, 1823 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point) and 24 hours after surgery (MD -0.60 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.15; 16 trials, 1404 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point). Comparison 2: deep versus shallow NMB Three trials compared deep versus shallow NMB. The trials did not report on mortality and health-related quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB compared to shallow NMB on the proportion of serious adverse events (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.57; 2 trials, 158 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 3: deep versus no NMB One trial compared deep versus no NMB. There was no mortality in this trial, and health-related quality of life was not reported. The proportion of serious adverse events was 0/25 in the deep NMB group and 1/25 in the no NMB group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effects of deep NMB compared to moderate NMB on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life and duration of surgery compared to moderate NMB, and it may have no effect on the length of hospital stay. Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we do not know what the effect is of deep NMB on non-serious adverse events, pain scores, or readmission rates. Randomised clinical trials with adequate reporting of all adverse events would reduce the current uncertainties. Due to the low number of identified trials and the very low certainty of evidence, we do not know what the effect of deep NMB on serious adverse events is compared to shallow NMB and no NMB. We found no trials evaluating mortality and health-related quality of life.

Clinical Frailty Score is a good predictor of postoperative mortality in patients undergoing open abdomen surgery: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Open Abdomen (OA) is gaining popularity in damage control surgery (DCS) but there is not an absolute prognostic score to identify patients that may benefit from it. Our study investigates the correlation between the clinical frailty scale score (CFSS) and postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing OA. METHODS: Patients ≥65 yo undergoing OA in two referral centres between 2015 and 2020 were included and stratified according to CFSS in non-frail (NF), frail (F) and highly-frail (HF). The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were postoperative morbidity and 1- year survival. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-six patients were included: 35 NF (25.7%), 56 F (41.2%), 45 HF (33.1%). Average age 76.8. The 73.5% of cases were non-traumatic diseases with no difference in preoperative characteristics. 95 (71.4%) had one complication, 26 NF (74.3%), 34 F (63.2%), 35 HF (77.8%) (P=0.301) and 59.4% had a complication with a CD≥3, 57.1% NF, 56.6% F and 64.4 HF. The 30-day mortality was 32.4%, higher in HF (46.7%) and F (30.4%) compared to NF (17.1%, P=0.018). The Overall 1-year survival was 41% (SE ±4) with statistically significant difference between HF vs. NF and HF vs. F (P=0.009 and P=0.029, respectively). In the univariate analysis, the only significant prognostic factor impacting mortality was CFSS, with HF having an HR of 1.948 (95% CI 1.097-3.460, P=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: When OA is a surgical option, frail patients should not be precluded, while HF should be carefully evaluated. The CFSS might be a good prognostic score for patients that may safely benefit from OA.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy After Intestinal Anastomosis: A Risk Factor Analysis for Dehiscence.

INTRODUCTION: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is part of the temporary abdominal closure in the treatment of patients with traumatic, inflammatory, or vascular disease. However, the use of NPWT when performing an intestinal anastomosis has been controversial. This study aimed to describe the patients managed with NPWT therapy and identify the risk factors for anastomotic dehiscence when intestinal anastomosis was performed. METHODS: A single-center cohort study with prospectively collected databases was performed. Patients who required NPWT therapy from January 2014 to December 2018 were included. Patients were stratified according to the performance of intestinal anastomosis and according to the presence of dehiscence. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed for anastomotic dehiscence and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 97 patients were included. Median age was 52 y old [interquartile range 24.5-70]. Male patients corresponded to 75.6% (n = 34) of the population. Delayed fascial closure was performed in 80% (n = 36). The risk of anastomotic dehiscence was higher in females (odds ratio (OR) 11.52 [confidence interval (CI) 1.29-97.85], P = 0.030), delayed fascial closure (OR 18.18 [CI 2.02-163.5], P = 0.010) and use of vasopressors (OR 12.04 [CI 1.22-118.47], P = 0.033). NPWT pressures >110 mmHg were evidenced in the dehiscence group with statistically significant value (OR 1.2 [0.99-2.26] p 0.04) CONCLUSIONS: There is still controversy in the use of NPWT when performing intestinal anastomosis. According to our data, the risk of dehiscence is higher in females, delayed fascial closure, use of vasopressors, and NPWT pressures >110 MMHG.