Postoperative non-traumatic compartment syndrome (PNCS) in gynecologic surgery.

PURPOSE: The postoperative non-traumatic compartment syndrome (PNCS) is a rare, but serious postoperative complication. Etiology, risk factors and clinical manifestation of PNCS are not well characterized since data in gynecologic and obstetric patients are limited. METHODS: We performed a retrospective monocentric study of patients who underwent surgery for gynecologic or obstetrics conditions and identified five cases of PNCS, which were analyzed and compared to a control cohort in regard of incidence, clinical presentation, risk factors and clinical outcome. RESULTS: Five cases of PNCS were identified among 19.432 patients treated between 2008 and 2019 with an incidence rate of 0.026%. The clinical examination was shown to be unreliable, lacking sensitivity in most clinical signs. Young age, obesity and long operation time were risk factors for the development of a PNCS. Fasciotomy for the treatment of a PNCS should not be delayed, since permanent function loss may occur early. CONCLUSION: A low threshold of clinical suspicion might be prudent to identify PNCS following gynecologic surgery. In the presence of the described risk factors, any suspicion of a PNCS should be evaluated further and if necessary treated with fasciotomy urgently.

Bi-spectral index, entropy and predicted plasma propofol concentrations with target controlled infusions in Indian patients.

OBJECTIVE: Many processed electroencephalographic signals are used now to help the anaesthesiologist titrate the depth of sedation. We investigated the relationship between target plasma propofol concentration and objective end-points of sedation- Bispectral Index (BIS), State Entropy (SE) and Response Entropy (RE)-at clinical end-points as assessed by Modified Observer Assessment of Alertness/sedation Scale (MOAAS) in Indian patients. METHODS: Eighteen ASA 1 and 2 Indian adult patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery were included. The target control infusion (TCI) of propofol was administered using 'Diprifusor'. The level of sedation was assessed using MOAAS by the anaesthesiologist. BIS, SE, RE were recorded throughout. TCI was started at 0.5 µg/ml and increased by 0.5 µg/ml every 6 min till MOAAS scores reached 0 or there was sustained BIS value less than 30. RESULTS: The EC(50) and EC(95) of predicted plasma propofol concentration for loss of consciousness (assessed by loss of response to verbal command), were 2.3 and 2.8 µg/ml respectively and for loss of response to painful stimuli (trapezius squeeze) were 4.0 and 5.0 µg/ml respectively. The BIS and entropy values (EC(50) and EC(95)) for loss of consciousness and response to painful stimuli in Indian patients were estimated. The preliminary relation of target plasma propofol concentration with BIS was found to be BIS = 100.5-16.4 × (Target concentration). CONCLUSIONS: The target plasma propofol concentrations required to produce unconsciousness and loss of response to painful stimuli in Indian patients have been estimated. Also, the relations between target plasma concentration and objective measures of different levels of anaesthesia have been established.