[Is postoperative acute pain control in colorectal surgery better within an enhanced recovery after surgery program (ERAS)?] / ¿Mejora el control del dolor postoperatorio en cirugía colorrectal tras la implementación de un protocolo de rehabilitación intensificada (ERAS)?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A good acute pain control is necessary to achieve the main objective of Enhanced recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs and accelerate recovery. The study objective is to evaluate postoperative (PO) acute pain, PO opioid consumption, and its association with functional recovery, after implementing a colorectal surgery ERAS program. An analysis was made as regards drugs adverse effects. METHODS: Observational cohort study on scheduled colorectal Surgery: one prospective cohort subjected to the ERAS care program, and one retrospective cohort that received traditional non-standardised care. A record was made of mean pain intensity (measured by a visual analogue scale, which classifies pain intensity from 0 to 10, from lower to higher intensity), as well as the amount of opioid consumption on the day of surgery and on the first three postoperative days, and drugs adverse effects. An analysis was made of the association between PO opioid consumption and ERAS program, and between PO opioid consumption and functional recovery. RESULTS: The study included a total of 410 patients (313 in the ERAS group and 97 in the control group). In the ERAS group, it was observed that the mean visual analogue scale was less than 2, with a smaller amount of PO opioid consumption, on each single day and the accumulated amount of the four days (4 [0-24] vs. 0 [0-4], P<.001). PO opioid consumption was associated with functional recovery (OR 0.97 [95% CI; 0.96-0.99], P=.011). No drugs adverse effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: After implementing a colorectal Surgery ERAS program, good pain control was achieved, as well as a reduction in PO opioid consumption, which is associated with functional recovery. No drugs adverse effects were observed.

[Retrospective comparative study between sevoflurane and propofol in maintaining anaesthesia during liver transplant: Effects on kidney and liver function]. / Estudio retrospectivo comparativo entre sevoflurano y propofol en el mantenimiento de la anestesia durante el trasplante hepático. Efectos sobre la función renal y hepática.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the post-operative effects of sevoflurane versus propofol on liver and kidney function while maintaining anaesthesia in the orthotopic liver transplant (OLT), as well as to analyse the short-term survival as regards these functions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients subjected to an OLT between January 2002 and December 2009. Patients on pre-transplant haemodialysis, re-transplants, and hepatorenal transplants were excluded. The incidence of acute renal failure, initial dysfunction of the graft, reperfusion syndrome, rejection, and the transaminase peak depending value depending on the hypnotic used, were recorded. RESULTS: About one-third (31.2%) of the patients developed acute renal failure and 11.9% an initial dysfunction, with no differences between the groups. There was a tendency for a lower incidence of initial dysfunction of the graft in the sevoflurane group (8.6% compared to 12.8%), a lower transaminase peak (greater than 2000 U/L, 12.1% versus 15.9%), and a lower incidence of reperfusion syndrome (10.3% compared to 21.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that the renal metabolism sevoflurane is elevated, we did not find any higher incidence of acute renal failure. Sevoflurane in the liver transplant anaesthesia is as least equally as safe propofol as regards renal function and liver function. New prospective studies are needed to clarify the possible effects of the hypnotic in liver transplant.

Estudio retrospectivo comparativo entre sevoflurano y propofol en el mantenimiento de la anestesia durante el trasplante hepático. Efectos sobre la función renal y hepática / Retrospective comparative study between sevoflurane and propofol in maintaining anaesthesia during liver transplant: effects on kidney and liver function

Objetivo. Comparar la repercusión postoperatoria sobre la función hepática y renal del sevofluorano frente al propofol durante el mantenimiento de la anestesia en el trasplante hepático ortotópico, así como analizar la supervivencia a corto plazo en relación a dichas funciones. Pacientes y métodos. Análisis retrospectivo de pacientes sometidos a THO entre enero de 2002 y diciembre de 2009. Fueron excluidos los pacientes con hemodiálisis pretrasplante, los retrasplantes y trasplantes hepatorrenales. Se comparó la incidencia de insuficiencia renal aguda, disfunción inicial del injerto, síndrome de reperfusión, rechazo y el pico máximo de transaminasas en función del hipnótico utilizado. Resultados. Un 31,2% de los pacientes desarrolló insuficiencia renal aguda y un 11,9% disfunción inicial, sin diferencias entre los grupos. Hubo tendencia a una menor incidencia de disfunción inicial del injerto en el grupo sevoflurano (8,6 frente a 12,8%), menor pico de transaminasas (más de 2.000 U/L, 12,1 frente a 15,9%) y menor incidencia de síndrome de reperfusión (10,3 frente a 21,6%). Conclusiones. A pesar de que en el trasplante el metabolismo renal del sevofluorano está aumentado, no hemos encontrado mayor incidencia de insuficiencia renal aguda. El sevofluorano en la anestesia del trasplante de hígado es al menos igual de seguro sobre la función renal y la función hepática que el propofol. Son necesarios nuevos trabajos prospectivos para clarificar la posible repercusión del hipnótico en el trasplante de hígado(AU)

Objective. To compare the post-operative effects of sevoflurane versus propofol on liver and kidney function while maintaining anaesthesia in the orthotopic liver transplant (OLT), as well as to analyse the short-term survival as regards these functions. Patients and methods. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients subjected to an OLT between January 2002 and December 2009. Patients on pre-transplant haemodialysis, re-transplants, and hepatorenal transplants were excluded. The incidence of acute renal failure, initial dysfunction of the graft, reperfusion syndrome, rejection, and the transaminase peak depending value depending on the hypnotic used, were recorded. Results. About one-third (31.2%) of the patients developed acute renal failure and 11.9% an initial dysfunction, with no differences between the groups. There was a tendency for a lower incidence of initial dysfunction of the graft in the sevoflurane group (8.6% compared to 12.8%), a lower transaminase peak (greater than 2000 U/L, 12.1% versus 15.9%), and a lower incidence of reperfusion syndrome (10.3% compared to 21.6%). Conclusions. Despite the fact that the renal metabolism sevoflurane is elevated, we did not find any higher incidence of acute renal failure. Sevoflurane in the liver transplant anaesthesia is as least equally as safe propofol as regards renal function and liver function. New prospective studies are needed to clarify the possible effects of the hypnotic in liver transplant(AU)