Enhanced recovery after surgery for liver resection.

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) reduces postoperative length of hospital stay and patient stress response to liver surgery. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of an ERAS programme for liver resection. METHODS: A multidisciplinary ERAS protocol was implemented for both open and laparoscopic liver resection in a tertiary hospital in Hong Kong. The clinical outcomes of patients who underwent liver resection and underwent the ERAS perioperative programme were compared with those who received a conventional perioperative programme between September 2015 and July 2016. Propensity score matching analysis was used to minimise background differences. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients who underwent liver resection were recruited to the ERAS programme. Their clinical outcomes were compared with another 20 patients who received hepatectomy under a conventional perioperative programme after propensity score matching. The ERAS programme was associated with a significantly shorter length of hospital stay (P=0.033) without an increase in complication rates in patients who underwent open liver resection. There was no such significant association in patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection. No patients required readmission in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The ERAS perioperative programme for liver resection is safe and feasible. It significantly shortened the hospital stay after open liver resection but not after laparoscopic liver resection.

Local anaesthetic toxicity after bilateral thoracic paravertebral block in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery.

We conducted a small pilot observational study of the effects of bilateral thoracic paravertebral block (BTPB) as an adjunct to perioperative analgesia in coronary artery bypass surgery patients. The initial ropivacaine dose prior to induction of general anaesthesia was 3 mg/kg, which was followed at the end of the surgery by infusion of ropivacaine 0.25% 0.1 ml/kg/hour on each side (e.g. total 35 mg/hour for a 70 kg person). The BTPB did not eliminate the need for supplemental opioids after CABG in the eight patients studied. Moreover, in spite of boluses that were within the manufacturer's recommendation for epidural and major nerve blocks, and an infusion rate that was only slightly higher than what appeared to be safe for epidural infusion, potentially toxic total plasma ropivacaine concentrations were common. We also could not exclude the possibility that the high ropivacaine concentrations were contributing to postoperative mental state changes in the postoperative period. Also, one patient developed local anaesthetic toxicity after the bilateral paravertebral dose. As a result, the study was terminated early after four days. The question of whether paravertebral block confers benefits in cardiac surgery remains unanswered. However, we believe that the bolus dosage and the injection rate we used for BTPB were both too high, and caution other clinicians against the use of these doses. Future studies on the use of BTPB in cardiac surgery patients should include reduced ropivacaine doses injected over longer periods.

Can visual distraction decrease the dose of patient-controlled sedation required during colonoscopy? A prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: We previously demonstrated that audio distraction using relaxation music could lead to a decrease in the dose of sedative medication required and improve patient satisfaction during colonoscopy. This prospective randomized controlled trial was designed to test the hypotheses that visual distraction may also decrease the requirement for sedatives and that audio and visual distraction may have additive beneficial effects when used in combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 165 consecutive patients who underwent elective colonoscopy were randomly allocated into three groups to receive different modes of sedation: group 1 received visual distraction and patient-controlled sedation (PCS); group 2 received audiovisual distraction and PCS; group 3 received PCS alone. A mixture of propofol and alfentanil, delivered by a Graseby 3300 PCA pump, was used for PCS in these groups. Each bolus of PCS delivered 4.8 mg propofol and 12 micro g alfentanil. Measured outcomes included the dose of PCS used, complications, recovery time, pain score, satisfaction score, and willingness to use the same mode of sedation if the procedure were to be repeated. RESULTS: Eight patients were excluded after randomization. The mean+/-SD dose of propofol used in group 2 (0.81 mg/kg +/- 0.49) was significantly less than the dose used in group 1 (1.17 mg/kg +/- 0.81) and that used in group 3 (1.18 mg/kg +/- 0.60) ( P < 0.01, one-way analysis of variance). The mean +/- SD pain score was also lower in group 2 (5.1 +/- 2.5), compared with the pain scores in group 1 (6.2 +/- 2.2) and group 3 (7.0 +/- 2.4) ( P < 0.01, one-way analysis of variance). The mean +/- SD satisfaction score was higher in groups 1 (8.2 +/- 2.4)) and 2 (8.4 +/- 2.4), compared with the score in group 3 (6.1 +/- 2.9) ( P < 0.01, one-way analysis of variance). A majority of patients in groups 1 (73 %) and 2 (85 %) said that they would be willing to use the same mode of sedation again, compared with only 53 % in group 3 ( P < 0.01, chi-squared test). CONCLUSIONS: Visual distraction alone did not decrease the dose of sedative medication required for colonoscopy. When audio distraction was added, both the dose of sedative medication required and the pain score decreased significantly. Both visual and audiovisual distraction might improve patients' acceptance of colonoscopy.