Risk factors for mortality after emergency laparotomy: scoping systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Emergency laparotomy (EL) is a common procedure with high mortality leading to several efforts to record and reduce mortality. Risk scores currently used by quality improvement programmes either require intraoperative data or are not specific to EL. To be of utility to clinicians/patients, estimation of preoperative risk of mortality is important. We aimed to explore individual preoperative risk factors that might be of use in developing a preoperative mortality risk score. METHODS: Two independent reviewers identified relevant articles from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases from January 1980 to January 2018. We selected studies that evaluated only preoperative predictive factors for mortality in EL patients. RESULTS: The search yielded 6648 articles screened, with 22 studies included examining 157 728 patients. The combined post-operative 30-day mortality was 13%. All, but one small study, were at low risk of bias. A meta-analysis of results was not possible due to the heterogeneity of populations and outcomes. Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists, preoperative sepsis, dependency status, current cancer and comorbidities were associated with increased mortality. Acute physiological derangements seen in renal, albumin and complete blood count assays were strongly associated with mortality. Delay to surgery and diabetes did not influence mortality. Higher body mass index was protective. CONCLUSION: Preoperatively, risk factors identified can be used to develop and update risk scores specific for EL mortality. This scoping review focused on the preoperative setting which helps tailor treatment decisions. It highlights the need for further research to test the relevance of newer risk factors such as frailty and nutrition.

Local Anaesthesia Alone Versus Regional or General Anaesthesia in Excisional Haemorrhoidectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Excisional haemorrhoidectomy has been traditionally performed under general or regional anaesthesia. However, these modes are associated with complications such as nausea, urinary retention and motor blockade. Local anaesthesia (LA) alone has been proposed to reduce side effects as well as to expedite ambulatory surgery. This systematic review aims to assess LA versus regional or general anaesthesia for excisional haemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched to 13 January 2020. All randomised controlled trials comparing LA only versus regional or general anaesthesia in patients who received excisional haemorrhoidectomy were included. The main outcomes included pain, adverse effects and length of stay. RESULTS: Nine trials, consisting of six studies comparing local versus regional anaesthesia and three comparing LA versus general anaesthesia, were included. Meta-analysis showed a significantly lower relative risk for need of rescue analgesia (RR 0.32 [95% CI 0.16-0.62]), intra-operative hypotension (RR 0.17 [95% CI 0.04-0.76]), headache (RR 0.13 [0.02-0.67]) and urinary retention (RR 0.17 [95% CI 0.09-0.29]) for LA when compared with regional anaesthesia. There was mixed evidence for both regional and general anaesthesia in regard to post-operative pain. CONCLUSIONS: LA alone may be considered as an alternative to regional anaesthesia for excisional haemorrhoidectomy with reduced complications and reduction in the amount of post-operative analgesia required. The evidence for LA compared to general anaesthesia for haemorrhoidectomy is low grade and mixed.

Association between perioperative intraperitoneal local anaesthetic infusion and long-term survival and cancer recurrence after colectomy: follow-up analysis of a previous randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: High concentrations of local anaesthetic have an anti-proliferative effect on colonic cancer in vitro. Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic (IPLA) has shown analgesic benefit and improved recovery in the perioperative setting. The long-term effects of IPLA in colon cancer resection have not been examined. This study aims to review the survival and oncological outcomes of a previously conducted trial that compared perioperative IPLA with placebo. METHODS: Sixty patients underwent colonic resection for benign and malignant disease as part of a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study between September 2008 and November 2009. The IPLA group received instillation of intraperitoneal ropivacaine before dissection followed by a 3-day infusion. The placebo group was treated identically but with 0.9% saline solution. A follow-up analysis was conducted to evaluate overall survival, disease-free survival and recurrence specifically for patients undergoing resection for stages I-III colon cancer. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed, and the log-rank test was used to evaluate difference in survival between groups. RESULTS: Thirty-seven of the 60 patients had stages I-III colon cancer and were included in this analysis. Nineteen patients were in the placebo group. There was no significant difference in overall survival or all-cause mortality. There was a higher incidence of cancer-specific mortality in the local anaesthetic group (P < 0.046). CONCLUSION: It does not appear that IPLA is associated with a significant survival benefit in patients with colonic malignancy undergoing colectomy. Other studies are needed to analyse the long-term outcomes.

Evidence-Based Management of Postoperative Pain in Adults Undergoing Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a common weight loss operation that is increasingly being managed on an outpatient or overnight stay basis. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after LSG. METHODS: A systematic review utilizing preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis with PROcedure SPECific Postoperative Pain ManagemenT methodology was undertaken. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the English language from inception to September 2018 assessing postoperative pain using analgesic, anesthetic, and surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases. RESULTS: Significant heterogeneity was identified in the 18 RCTs included in this systematic review. Gabapentinoids and transversus abdominis plane blocks reduced LSG postoperative pain. There was limited procedure-specific evidence of analgesic effects for acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, dexamethasone, magnesium, and tramadol in this setting. Inconsistent evidence was found in the studies investigating alpha-2-agonists. No evidence was found for intraperitoneal local anesthetic administration or single-port laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The literature to recommend an optimal analgesic regimen for LSG is limited. The pragmatic view supports acetaminophen and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, with opioids as rescue analgesics. Gabapentinoids should be used with caution, as they may amplify opioid-induced respiratory depression. Although transversus abdominis plane blocks reduced pain, port-site infiltration may be considered instead, as it is a simple and inexpensive approach that provides adequate somatic blockade. Further RCTs are required to confirm the influence of the recommended analgesic regimen on postoperative pain relief.

Individualised follow-up booklets improve recall and satisfaction for cancer patients.

AIMS: The New Zealand Provisional Standards of Service Provision for Cancer recommend providing patients with written information about their diagnosis, treatment and follow up. This project aimed to develop and evaluate a resource that could be used to provide essential information to patients who were nearing completion of the surgical treatment of their cancer. METHODS: The study compared patients with melanoma, colorectal and breast cancers who received standard discussion of their diagnosis, treatment and follow-up plan with cancer patients who received a discussion supported by an individualised follow-up booklet. Patients were interviewed using an over-the-phone questionnaire to assess their free recall and prompted recall of follow-up items, their perception of the level of information received and satisfaction with the communication of their follow-up plan. RESULTS: The group who received a booklet as part of discussion of their follow-up plan scored significantly higher on measures of free recall, prompted recall, satisfaction with the level of information provided and overall satisfaction than those who had a standard clinic discussion but did not receive a booklet. Free recall of two relevant items improved from 61% of patients to 91%. Prompted recall of at least one item improved from 77% of patients to 100%. The proportion of patients feeling they did not receive enough information fell from 25% to 5%. The proportion of patients scoring their satisfaction at >8/10 increased from 68% to 87%. All of these measures reached significance. CONCLUSION: Individualised cancer follow-up booklets are a simple, low-cost and low-risk initiative that used in a New Zealand setting, was associated with improved patient recall and satisfaction with the follow-up information they received. This supports the benefit of providing participants with personalised written information, as recommended in the New Zealand Provisional Standards of Service Provision for Cancer.