Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block after robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is widely used as a part of pain management after various abdominal surgeries. We evaluated the effect of TAP block as an add-on to the routine analgesic regimen in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. METHODS: In a prospective blinded study, 70 patients scheduled for elective robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy were randomised to receive either TAP block (ropivacaine 0.5%, 20 ml on each side) or sham block (isotonic saline 0.9%, 20 ml on each side). All patients had patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine on top of paracetamol and ibuprofen or diclofenac. For the first 24 post-operative hours, we monitored PCA morphine consumption and pain scores with visual analogue scale (VAS) at rest and while coughing. Post-operative nausea and number of vomits (PONV) were recorded. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients completed the study, 34 receiving TAP block with ropivacaine and 31 receiving sham block with isotonic saline. We found no differences in median (interquartile range) morphine consumption the first 24 h between the TAP block group [17.5 mg (6.9-36.0 mg)] and the placebo group [17.5 mg (2.9-38.0 mg)] (95% confidence interval 10.0-22.6 mg, P = 0.648). No differences were found for VAS scores between the two groups, calculated as area under the curve/1-24 h, neither at rest (P = 0.112) nor while coughing (P = 0.345), or for PONV between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the TAP block combined with paracetamol and Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) treatment, had no effect on morphine consumption, VAS pain scores, or frequency of nausea and vomiting after robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with paracetamol and NSAID alone.

Pre-emptive treatment with fibrinogen concentrate for postpartum haemorrhage: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In early postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), a low concentration of fibrinogen is associated with excessive subsequent bleeding and blood transfusion. We hypothesized that pre-emptive treatment with fibrinogen concentrate reduces the need for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in patients with PPH. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, multicentre, double-blinded, parallel randomized controlled trial, we assigned subjects with severe PPH to a single dose of fibrinogen concentrate or placebo (saline). A dose of 2 g or equivalent was given to all subjects independent of body weight and the fibrinogen concentration at inclusion. The primary outcome was RBC transfusion up to 6 weeks postpartum. Secondary outcomes were total blood loss, total amount of blood transfused, occurrence of rebleeding, haemoglobin <58 g litre(-1), RBC transfusion within 4 h, 24 h, and 7 days, and as a composite outcome of 'severe PPH', defined as a decrease in haemoglobin of >40 g litre(-1), transfusion of at least 4 units of RBCs, haemostatic intervention (angiographic embolization, surgical arterial ligation, or hysterectomy), or maternal death. RESULTS: Of the 249 randomized subjects, 123 of 124 in the fibrinogen group and 121 of 125 in the placebo group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At inclusion the subjects had severe PPH, with a mean blood loss of 1459 (sd 476) ml and a mean fibrinogen concentration of 4.5 (sd 1.2) g litre(-1). The intervention group received a mean dose of 26 mg kg(-1) fibrinogen concentrate, thereby significantly increasing fibrinogen concentration compared with placebo by 0.40 g litre(-1) (95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.65; P=0.002). Postpartum blood transfusion occurred in 25 (20%) of the fibrinogen group and 26 (22%) of the placebo group (relative risk, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.54; P=0.88). We found no difference in any predefined secondary outcomes, per-protocol analyses, or adjusted analyses. No thromboembolic events were detected. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for the use of 2 g fibrinogen concentrate as pre-emptive treatment for severe PPH in patients with normofibrinogenaemia. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01359878. Published protocol: http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/pdf/1745-6215-13-110.pdf.

Inconsistencies in clinical guidelines for obstetric anaesthesia for Caesarean section: a comparison of the Danish, English, American, and German guidelines with regard to developmental quality and guideline content.

BACKGROUND: Anaesthetists need evidence-based clinical guidelines, also in obstetric anaesthesia. We compared the Danish, English, American, and German national guidelines for anaesthesia for Caesarean section. We focused on assessing the quality of guideline development and evaluation of the guidelines' content. METHODS: We compared the four countries' guideline developmental quality by using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument, an international tool for development and assessment of guidelines. The clinically important content of these countries' guidelines was compared. RESULTS: We found differences in the quality of guideline development in the four countries. The German guidelines scored very low in the AGREE analysis, and the Danish national guideline scored low in the AGREE analysis. The American and British guideline both achieved high scores in the AGREE analysis. We found differences in the content of the four countries' guidelines. The Danish, American, and British guidelines were comprehensive but with some variation in the content. CONCLUSION: Development of national guidelines might benefit from following standardised regulations, such as those used in the AGREE tool. Content of guidelines is not standardised. Recommendations for the content of guidelines might contribute to standardising clinical guidelines.