Nurse-led ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block: A randomised controlled trial of two different patient flow systems in an emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Elderly with hip fractures present complex challenges. Effective pain management is crucial for recovery and quality of life. However, pain control can be difficult and requires customized care. METHODS: We conducted an unblinded, randomised controlled trial investigating the effects of ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block in patients with hip fracture performed by specially trained nurses (Group Nurse) compared to anaesthesiologists (Group Anaesthesiologist). The hypothesis was that a single shot ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block would result in a total summarized lower dynamic numeric rating scale score for pain intensity during the first 120 min after admission for patients in Group Nurse compared to Group Anaesthesiologist measured in five timepoints. The primary outcome was measured by a cumulative numeric rating scale score for dynamic pain (with flexion of the hip until maximum 30° from bed surface) during the first 120 min after admission to the emergency department. RESULTS: From February 2020 to June 2021, 263 patients were screened, of which 42 (16.0%) consented and were randomly allocated; 21 in each arm. The primary outcome was not different between groups (p = 0.24), and displayed no substantial superiority of specially trained nurses over anaesthesiologist. No complications or adverse effects were observed in either group. The use of systemic analgesics and the development of delirium was similar between the two groups. In the Nurse Group, patients were administered their ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block earlier. CONCLUSION: Our study did not demonstrate a statistically significant beneficial effect of specially trained nurses over anaesthesiologist on cumulative pain in performing ultrasound-guided femoral nerve blocks, while no side-effects/complications or adverse effects were observed in either group. CLINICALTRIAL: The trial was registered on October 31, 2019 at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04145752).

Early detection of anastomotic leakage after pancreatoduodenectomy with microdialysis catheters: an observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Microdialysis catheters can detect focal inflammation and ischemia, and thereby have a potential for early detection of anastomotic leakages after pancreatoduodenectomy. The aim was to investigate whether microdialysis catheters placed near the pancreaticojejunostomy can detect leakage earlier than the current standard of care. METHODS: Thirty-five patients with a median age 69 years were included. Two microdialysis catheters were placed at the end of surgery; one at the pancreaticojejunostomy, and one at the hepaticojejunostomy. Concentrations of glucose, lactate, pyruvate, and glycerol were analyzed hourly in the microdialysate during the first 24 h, and every 2-4 h thereafter. RESULTS: Seven patients with postoperative pancreatic fistulae (POPF) had significantly higher glycerol levels (P < 0.01) in the microdialysate already in the first postoperative samples. Glycerol concentrations >400 µmol/L during the first 12 postoperative hours detected patients with POPF with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 93% (P < 0.001). After 24 h, lactate and lactate-to-pyruvate ratio were significantly higher (P < 0.05) and glucose was significantly lower (P < 0.05) in patients with POPF. CONCLUSION: High levels of glycerol in microdialysate was an early detector of POPF. The subsequent inflammation was detected as increase in lactate and lactate-to-pyruvate ratio and a decrease in glucose (NCT03627559).

Monitoring of patients with microdialysis following pancreaticoduodenectomy-the MINIMUM study: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy is a much-feared complication associated with substantial mortality and morbidity. The current standard for diagnosing postoperative pancreatic fistula, besides routine clinical examination, include radiological examinations, analysis of pancreatic drain amylase activity, and routine blood samples. Another promising method is by intraperitoneal microdialysis to monitor intraperitoneal metabolites measured at the pancreaticojejunostomy, thereby detecting what occurs locally, before chemical events can be reflected as measurable changes in systemic blood levels. METHODS: The MINIMUM study is a prospective, randomized, controlled, single center enrolling 200 patients scheduled for open pancreatoduodenectomy comparing the microdialysis method to the "standard of care." Half of the included patients will be randomized to receive an intraperitoneal microdialysis catheter implanted at the end of surgery and will be monitored by microdialysis as an additional monitoring tool. The other half of the patients will not receive a microdialysis catheter and will be monitored according to the current standard of care. The primary objective is to evaluate if the microdialysis method can reduce the total length of stay at the hospital. Secondary endpoints are the frequency of complications, length of stay at the hospital at our institution, catheter malfunction, number of infections and bleeding episodes caused by the microdialysis catheter, patient-reported quality of life and pain, and cost per patient undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. The patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. DISCUSSION: Intraabdominal microdialysis could potentially reduce morbidity and mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy. Furthermore, there is a great potential for shortening the in-hospital length of stay and reducing the financial aspect considerably. This study may potentially open the possibility for using microdialysis as standard monitoring in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. The hypothesis is that the microdialysis method compared to "standard care" will reduce the total length of hospital stay. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03631173 ). Registered on 7 September 2018 under the name: "Monitoring of patients With Microdialysis Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy". Based on protocol version 19-1, dated 15th January 2019.

The anesthesia in abdominal aortic surgery (ABSENT) study: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing troponin T release with fentanyl-sevoflurane and propofol-remifentanil anesthesia in major vascular surgery.

BACKGROUND: On the basis of data indicating that volatile anesthetics induce cardioprotection in cardiac surgery, current guidelines recommend volatile anesthetics for maintenance of general anesthesia during noncardiac surgery in hemodynamic stable patients at risk for perioperative myocardial ischemia. The aim of the current study was to compare increased troponin T (TnT) values in patients receiving sevoflurane-based anesthesia or total intravenous anesthesia in elective abdominal aortic surgery. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, open, parallel-group trial comparing sevoflurane-based anesthesia (group S) and total intravenous anesthesia (group T) with regard to cardioprotection in 193 patients scheduled for elective abdominal aortic surgery. Increased TnT level on the first postoperative day was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were postoperative complications, nonfatal coronary events and mortality. RESULTS: On the first postoperative day increased TnT values (>13 ng/l) were found in 43 (44%) patients in group S versus 41 (43%) in group T (P = 0.999), with no significant differences in TnT levels between the groups at any time point. Although underpowered, the authors found no differences in postoperative complications, nonfatal coronary events or mortality between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In elective abdominal aortic surgery sevoflurane-based anesthesia did not reduce myocardial injury, evaluated by TnT release, compared with total intravenous anesthesia. These data indicate that potential cardioprotective effects of volatile anesthetics found in cardiac surgery are less obvious in major vascular surgery.

Proinflammatory cytokines and complement activation in salvaged blood from abdominal aortic aneurism surgery and total hip replacement surgery.

BACKGROUND: Levels of proinflammatory mediators in unwashed salvaged blood from abdominal aortic aneurism (AAA) surgery are unknown. We hypothesized that there are higher levels of these mediators in unwashed blood salvaged in AAA surgery compared to hip replacement surgery. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Ten patients scheduled for AAA surgery (Group A) and 10 patients for total hip replacement surgery (Group H) were included. Blood samples from the autotransfusion set were obtained during surgery and arterial samples before, during, and 6 hours after surgery. Determination of interleukin (IL)-1ß, IL-6, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor-α, activated complement 3 (C3a), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) were performed. Salvaged blood was not retransfused. RESULTS: Levels (median [range]) of IL-8 in blood in the salvage system were higher in Group A versus Group H (215.3 [22.5-697.2] vs. 35.3 [16.7-66.6] pg/mL; p = 0.002). Higher levels of IL-6 were also seen in Group A versus Group H (60.0 [52.6-62.2] vs. 42.34 [19.4-62.2] pg/mL; p = 0.049). Levels of IL-6 in blood sampled during surgery were approximately fivefold higher in Group A versus Group H (p = 0.023), whereas approximately 70% higher levels of C3a were observed in Group H versus Group A (p = 0.021). Postoperative concentrations of IL-1ß (p = 0.002), IL-6 (p = 0.001), and IL-8 (0.005) were higher in Group A versus Group H. CONCLUSION: Salvaged blood in AAA surgery contains substantially higher levels of proinflammatory mediators compared to blood in total hip replacement surgery.

[Choice of anaesthetic approach and anaesthetic drugs]. / Valg av anestesimetode og anestesimidler.

BACKGROUND: All types of anaesthesia should ensure absence of pain, inhibit autonomic responses and provide optimal conditions for surgery. Choice of anaesthetic approach (local, regional or general anaesthesia or a combination of methods) depends on type of surgery and the patients' health and preferences. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The review is based on literature identified through non-systematic searches in PubMed and own research and experience. RESULTS: When selecting anaesthetic approach and anaesthetic drugs one has to consider not only the perioperative period, but also postoperative aspects such as pain relief, awakeness, functional ability and absence of nausea. After major surgery, regional anaesthesia (especially epidural anaesthesia) and postoperative analgesia have been shown to reduce pulmonary complications and chronic pain. General anaesthesia can be administered either by volatile agents for inhalation, intravenous hypnotics, potent opioids or a combination (often used). Volatile agents, shown to be cardioprotective during cardiac surgery, are recommended for major non-cardiac surgery in patients with heart disease (even though clinical documentation is limited). INTERPRETATION: An appropriate anaesthetic approach, taking into account patient characteristics and type of surgery, is important for safety and potential complications. In some situations, the anaesthetic approach and anaesthetic drugs may have an impact on outcome.