Peritonectomy with high voltage electrocautery generates higher levels of ultrafine smoke particles.

BACKGROUND: To adequately perform peritonectomy, the use of an electrocautery device at a high voltage is recommended. The aim of this study was to analyse the amount of airborne and ultrafine particles (UFP) generated during peritonectomy and to compare this with standard colon and rectal cancer surgery (CRC). METHOD: UFP was measured approximately 2-3 cm from the breathing area of the surgeon (personal sampling) and 3 m from where the electrocautery smoke was generated (stationary sampling) from 14 consecutive peritonectomy procedures and 11 standard CRC resections. The sampling was by P-Trak UFP counter that has the capacity to detect particle size ranging from 0.02 to 1 microm. RESULTS: The cumulative level of UFP of personal sampling in the peritonectomy group was higher (9.3 x 10(6) particle/ml/h (pt/ml/h)) than in the control group (4.8 x 10(5) pt/ml/h). A higher cumulative level of UFP in stationary sampling was observed in the PC group (2.6 x 10(6) pt/ml/h) than in the control group (3.9 x 10(4)pt/ml/h). CONCLUSION: Peritonectomy procedure with high voltage electrocautery generates elevated levels of UFP than standard CRC surgery does. The level of UFP produced by a peritonectomy is comparable to cigarette smoking. More efficient smoke evacuator systems are needed in order to reduce the levels of UFP generated during electrocautery surgery.

Victims of awareness.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative awareness with explicit recall may be followed by long-lasting mental symptoms. However, the average risk for developing mental sequelae after awareness, and the average severity and the duration of symptoms has not previously been illustrated in a consecutive series of awareness cases. METHODS: Nine patients among 18 consecutive, prospectively identified cases of intraoperative awareness with recall could be located after approximately 2 years and agreed to an interview about possible persisting problems. RESULTS: Four of the nine interviewed patients were still severely disabled due to psychiatric/psychological sequelae. All of these patients had experienced anxiety during the period of awareness, but only one had complained about pain. Another three patients had less severe, transient mental symptoms, although they could cope with these in daily life. Two patients denied any sequelae from their awareness episode. CONCLUSIONS: Up to 3 weeks after their unsuccessful anesthetic, repeated information and discussions had been offered. Despite the fact that all patients at that time claimed to be satisfied with this management, and eventually considered no further contacts necessary, this was obviously inaccurate. Therefore, professional psychiatric assessment, treatment and long-term follow-up should constitute standard practice for all patients who have experienced intraoperative awareness.

Awareness during anaesthesia: a prospective case study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are given general anaesthesia are not guaranteed to remain unconscious during surgery. Knowledge about the effectiveness of current protective measures is scarce, as is our understanding of patients' responses to this complication. We did a prospective case study to assess conscious awareness during anaesthesia. METHODS: 11785 patients who had undergone general anaesthesia were interviewed for awareness on three occasions: before they left the post-anaesthesia care unit, and 1-3 days and 7-14 days after the operation. FINDINGS: We identified 18 cases of awareness and one case of inadvertent muscle blockade that had occurred before unconsciousness. Incidence of awareness was 0.18% in cases in which neuromuscular blocking drugs were used, and 0.10% in the absence of such drugs. 17 cases of awareness were identified at the final interview, but no more than 11 would have been detected if an interview had been done only when the patients left the post-anaesthesia care unit. Four non-paralysed patients recalled intraoperative events, but none had anxiety during wakefulness or had delayed neurotic symptoms. This finding contrasts with anaesthesia with muscle relaxants, during which 11 of 14 patients had pain, anxiety, or delayed neurotic symptoms. After repeated discussion and information, the delayed neurotic symptoms resolved within 3 weeks in all patients. Analysis of individual cases suggests that a reduced incidence of recall of intraoperative events would not be achieved by monitoring of end-tidal anaesthetic gas concentration or by more frequent use of benzodiazepines. INTERPRETATION: The inability to prevent awareness by conventional measures may advocate monitoring of cerebral activity by neurophysiological techniques. However, the sensitivity of such techniques is not known, and in the light of our findings, at least 861 patients would need to be monitored to avoid one patient from suffering due to awareness during relaxant anaesthesia.

Spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section following epidural analgesia in labour: a relative contraindication.

Three cases are described in which epidural analgesia was performed during labour using an infusion of bupivacaine 0.125-0.25%. When, in all 3 cases, caesarean section was required for failure to progress, hyperbaric bupivacaine was given in doses of 10 mg, 12.5 mg and 15 mg respectively. Within 2-4 min all 3 patients had a high block, complained of difficulty in breathing and subsequently developed apnoea. The trachea was intubated after administration of thiopentone and succinylcholine and the operation continued. Cardiovascular support was provided by the administration of ephedrine injected intermittently intravenously. The spinal block receded and the patients were able to return to the ward without any further complications. All three mothers remain in good health and do not regret having had spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. In contrast to previously reported cases of high spinal anaesthesia following unsuccessful epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section, this report describes 3 cases of high spinal following the administration of spinal anaesthesia upon an ongoing epidural infusion of local anaesthetic during labour. As no guidelines are available as to the recommended dose of spinal anaesthetic under such circumstances and, in view of the several case reports describing a similar complication under different circumstances, we suggest that spinal anaesthesia is contraindicated upon ongoing epidural analgesia or following a failed epidural.