Four-arm robotic lung resection versus muscle-sparing mini-thoracotomy: retrospective experience.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery was introduced in the early 2000s but its use remains limited, particularly in thoracic surgery. Here we compare the first consecutive 185 four-arm robotic procedures carried out in our institution vs. muscle-sparing video-assisted mini-thoracotomy (MSMT), our previous minimally invasive approach for anatomical lung resection. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-five consecutive patients undergoing surgery using the four-arm robotic technique between February 2014 and December 2016 were compared to a control historical series of 136 consecutive patients undergoing surgery by MSMT in the same institution. The same senior surgeon performed all surgical procedures. Comparisons between the two groups were performed using the Chi2 test for qualitative data and the Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney or Student's t-test for quantitative data. RESULTS: The demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients were similar in the two groups. In the robotic group, median (min-max) length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter (by 2 days) than in the MSMT group {7 days [3-63] vs. 9 days [5-63], respectively; P<0.0001}. The rate of complications was similar in the two groups, but the complications appeared to be less severe in patients undergoing robotic surgery (switch from Clavien-Dindo grade III and IV to grade II) although further studies are required to confirm this due to the large number of missing data. CONCLUSIONS: In a senior thoracic surgery practice, the switch from a minimally invasive technique to robotic surgery was safe and beneficial in patients undergoing anatomical lung resection in terms of LOS and possible complication severity.

A comparison of a single-stimulation lateral infraclavicular plexus block with a triple-stimulation axillary block.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A single-stimulation infraclavicular brachial plexus block (ICB) is safe and easy to perform, although underused. This technique was compared with a triple-stimulation axillary block (AxB). METHODS: One hundred patients scheduled for hand and forearm surgery were randomly allocated to 2 groups. ICB was performed with the needle inserted above the coracoid process in the upper lateral angle of the infraclavicular fossa and directed vertically until nerve stimulation elicited a distal motor response (median, radial, or ulnar). A single 40-mL bolus of ropivacaine 0.75% was injected. In the AxB group, 3 stimulations were performed to identify median or ulnar, radial, and musculocutaneous nerves, followed by an infiltration near the medial brachial and antebrachial cutaneous nerves. The same 40 mL of ropivacaine 0.75% was injected. Sensory and motor blocks were assessed at 5-minute intervals over 30 minutes. RESULTS: The time to block performance was shorter in the ICB than in the AxB group (2.5 +/- 1.9 minutes v 6.0 +/- 2.8 minutes, P <.001). The success rate (complete block in median, radial, ulnar, musculocutaneous, and medial antebrachial cutaneous nerves) was comparable in the 2 groups (90% v 88% in groups ICB and AxB, respectively). Block extension was comparable, except for a higher rate of block completion in the axillary nerve distribution in group ICB and in the medial brachial cutaneous nerve in group AxB. The onset of each nerve block was comparable except for a faster onset for the musculocutaneous nerve in group AxB (8 +/- 3 v 10 +/- 5 minutes). CONCLUSION: A single shot ICB is equally effective as a triple-nerve stimulation AxB.

Hypnosis increases heat detection and heat pain thresholds in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hypnosis has been reported to induce analgesia and to facilitate anesthesia. To date, hypnotic-induced analgesia has had little explanation and it has even been questioned. The current study was thus designed to investigate the effect of hypnotic suggestion on thermal-detection thresholds, heat pain, and heat-pain tolerance thresholds. METHODS: In 15 healthy volunteers, enrolled in a randomized cross-over study, thermal thresholds were investigated in 2 sequences of measurements, under waking and hypnotic states, using a thermal stimulator. RESULTS: Heat detection and heat-pain thresholds were increased under hypnosis (from 34.3 +/-.9 degrees C to 36.0 +/- 2.9 degrees C and 45.0 +/- 3.7 degrees C to 46.7 +/- 2.7 degrees C, respectively, P <.05), whereas heat-pain tolerance and cold-detection thresholds were not statistically changed. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that hypnosis may partly impair the detection of A delta and C fibers stimulation, potentially explaining its analgesic effect.