Laparoscopic-Assisted Transversus Abdominis Plane (TAP) Block Versus Port-Site Infiltration with Local Anesthetics in Bariatric Surgery: a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block has shown great potential usefulness in the management of postoperative pain; however, there is lacking evidence regarding its use in bariatric surgery. This randomized double-blind trial was aimed at comparing the effectiveness of the TAP block and port-site infiltration (PSI) in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. METHODS: We included patients ≥ 18 years old undergoing bariatric surgery. From July 2020 to July 2021, all eligible patients were randomized to receive either laparoscopic-assisted TAP block or PSI. Demographic and clinical data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: During the study period, we included 113 patients. Fifty-one were allocated to the TAP block group and 62 to the PSI group. The mean age was 47.9 ± 11.2 years, 88 (77.9%) patients were female, and mean BMI was 40.5 ± 5.9 kg/m2. Operative time was 110 ± 42 min vs. 114 ± 41 min in the TAP block and PSI groups (p = 0.658). At 24 h after surgery, pain on the VAS was 2.5 ± 2.6 vs. 2.3 ± 2.1 (p = 0.661). No significant difference between the groups was noted at 3, 6, 12, and 18 h. Also, opioid and antiemetic consumption, the length of stay (3.4 ± 1.5 days vs. 3.2 ± 1.1 days, p = 0.392), and satisfaction score (154 ± 10 pts vs. 154 ± 16 pts, p = 0.828) were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing bariatric surgery and receiving either the TAP block or the PSI had similar postoperative pain, nausea, length of stay, and satisfaction. As PSI is technically easier and more reproducible, it might be the first choice for postoperative multimodal analgesia in bariatric surgery.

SOFA Score as a Reliable Tool to Detect High Risk for Venous Thrombosis in Patients With Critical Stage SARS-CoV-2.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome from coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Different anticoagulation protocols have been applied in several studies in the absence of clear evidence. A reliable deep venous thrombosis (DVT) indicator in critical patients with SARS-CoV-2 could guide the anticoagulation treatment; however, it has not yet been identified, and clinical applicability of the most common markers is debatable. The aim of our study was to determine the actual incidence of DVT in critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients and to find a reliable tool to identify patients who might benefit from therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation. Methods: From March 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020, all patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for SARS-CoV-2 at Ospedale Regionale di Locarno, Locarno, Switzerland, were prospectively enrolled and screened daily with ultrasound for DVT. Following international consensus, a higher-intensity thromboprophylaxis was administered to all patients who were not at increased risk for bleeding. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores were calculated and time-to-DVT event in a COX proportional-hazard regression model was performed. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine sensitivity and specificity and the Youden's Index to establish the best threshold. Results: A total of 96 patients were enrolled. Deep venous thrombosis was detected in 37% of patients. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy and SOFA scores were both correlated to DVT. A SIC score of 1 vs. ≥2 showed a close association with DVT, with sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 90.0, 48.1, and 49.1, and 89.7%, respectively. Most significantly though, a SOFA score of 1 or 2 points was shown to be the most accurate value in predicting the absence of DVT, indicating no need for therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation. Its sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 87.9, 100, and 100, and 93.7%, respectively. The D-dimer test showed lower sensitivity and specificity whereas platelet count and aPTT were not found to be correlated to DVT. Conclusions: Patients with SOFA scores of 1 or 2 are at low risk of developing DVT and do not require therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation. Conversely, patients with scores ≥3 are at high risk of developing DVT.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Perioperative Outcomes.

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the role of robotic-assisted surgery in patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was performed: (("sleeve"AND "gastr*")OR "bariatric"OR "gastric bypass")AND("robot*"OR "DaVinci"OR "Da Vinci")AND("revision*"OR "conversion*"). In this review, six studies with 29,890 patients were included (2459 in the robotic group). No difference in postoperative complications (RR 1.070, 95%CI 0.930-1.231, p = 0.950), conversions to open surgery (RR 1.339, 95%CI 0.736-2.438, p = 0.339), length of stay (SMD - 0.041, 95%CI - 0.420-0.337, p = 0.831) or operative time (RR 0.219, 95%CI - 0.539-0.977, p = 0.571) was found. This systematic review and meta-analysis showed no significant advantage of robotic-assisted RBS; on the other hand, it showed a non-inferior efficacy compared to standard laparoscopy.