Adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block for pain control after total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Femoral nerve block is a widely accepted nerve block method with evident reduction in consumption of opioid painkiller and minimization of the duration of hospital stay but may cause weakness of quadriceps muscle strength. Adductor canal block is another nerve block technique that attracts the attention of scientific community nowadays because of its possible superiority over Femoral nerve block regarding mobility and muscle strength. METHODS: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of 33 studies, aiming to compare femoral nerve block with adductor canal block following total knee arthroplasty regarding pain control and mobilization. RESULTS: Adductor canal block showed better preservation of quadriceps muscle strength (MD = 0.28, 95% CI [0.11, 0.46], P = .002), and better mobilization up to 2 days postoperatively. However, no significant difference was found between the 2 interventions regarding pain control (MD = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.17], P = .33) or opioid consumption (SMD = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.22], P = .28) up to 2 days postoperatively. The better mobilization results of adductor canal block did not translate into a significant difference in the risk of falls or patients' satisfaction; however, adductor canal block patients had less mean length of hospital stay than the patients with femoral nerve block. CONCLUSION: Both femoral nerve block and adductor canal block provide similar results regarding pain control and opioid consumption, however adductor canal block provides better preservation of quadriceps strength and mobilization, giving it more advantage over femoral nerve block.

Practice patterns in the use of completion imaging after carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: The use of intraoperative completion imaging (completion carotid duplex ultrasound or angiography) to confirm the technical adequacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains a matter of controversy. The purpose of this study was to describe vascular surgeons' practice patterns in the use of completion imaging after CEA and to study the association between completion imaging and postoperative stroke/death and high-grade restenosis (>70%). METHODS: Patients who underwent CEA without concomitant procedures in the Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2003 and 2018 were included. Surgeons' practice patterns were defined on the basis of the distribution of completion imaging use among annual CEA cases per surgeon. Multivariable and Cox proportional hazards models were used to study the association between different practice patterns of completion imaging and perioperative and 1-year outcomes after CEA. RESULTS: Of 98,055 CEA cases, 26,716 (27.3%) were performed with completion imaging. Compared with cases in which completion imaging was not performed, completion imaging was associated with increased rates of immediate re-exploration (3.5% vs 0.9%; odds ratio [OR], 3.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.74-5.38; P < .001), overall return to the operating room (RTOR; 1.6% vs 1.2%; OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42; P < .01), and longer operative time (median [interquartile range], 105 minutes [82-132] vs 119 minutes [92-148]; P < .001). Of 1920 surgeons in our cohort, 45% never performed completion imaging, whereas 26% rarely performed completion imaging (for ≤20% of annual CEA cases), 9.5% performed it selectively (21%-79% of annual CEAs), and 19.6% used completion imaging routinely (≥80% of annual CEAs). Rarely performing completion imaging had higher rates of immediate re-exploration (6.5% vs 0.9%; OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 5.7-9.2; P < .001), in-hospital stroke (4.0% vs 1.1%; adjusted OR [aOR], 3.4; 95% CI, 2.6-4.6; P < .001), RTOR for bleeding (1.9% vs 0.9%; aOR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5-2.9; P < .001), and neurologic events (1.5% vs 0.4%; aOR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-5.9; P < .001) compared with not performing completion imaging. It was also associated with increased stroke/death and repeated revascularization at 30 days and significant restenosis at 1 year. On the other hand, performance of selective and routine completion imaging was associated with increased immediate re-exploration (selective: aOR, 3.2 [95% CI, 1.9-5.5; P < .001]; routine: aOR, 3.7 [95% CI, 2.5-5.6; P < .001]) without any increase in in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year adverse outcomes compared with cases performed without completion imaging. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of selective or routine completion imaging during CEA is safe and is not associated with increased adverse events compared with not using intraoperative completion imaging. However, rarely performing completion imaging is associated with a significant increase in the odds of perioperative stroke/death and RTOR, possibly because of unnecessary re-exploration for minor defects. The operator's experience and establishing a criterion for fixing residual defects are important to avoid unnecessary re-exploration.

Cecal Volvulus in a child with congenital dilated cardiomyopathy: A case report.

INTRODUCTION: Cecal volvulus is an extremely rare cause of intestinal obstruction in the pediatric age group and its incidence is unknown. PRESENTATION OF CASE: We present a unique case of cecal volvulus in a 3 year old female with congenital dilated cardiomyopathy. DISCUSSION: Cecal mobility due to malfixation and malrotation is the main cause. Cecal Volvulus usually presents with constipation, abdominal pain and distention. Common complications entail strangulation, ischemia and gangrene. Cecal volvulus has been reported in association with various abnormalities. However, Incidence of cecal volvulus in a child with congenital dilated cardiomyopathy has not been reported. Surgery is the mainstay of management. CONCLUSION: Cecal volvulus should be kept in mind in a child presenting with signs suggestive of intestinal obstruction.