[Survey national professional practice on the use of the laryngeal mask]. / Utilisation du masque laryngé: une enquête nationale de pratique professionnelle.

BACKGROUND: This survey aimed to describe the current use of laryngeal mask (LM) and to define the difference of use according to a group defined like experts. METHODS: A self-questionnaire available on Internet was sent by e-mail to French anesthesiologists. Results were compared by a Chi(2) test between anesthesiologists according to their expertise defined by a >750 LM use. RESULTS: Nine hundred and fifty-three anesthesiologists answered to the survey. Only 19 reported never using LM and 37% of responders were defined as expert. More than half of the MAR used the ideal weight to set the size of the MLA to use. Pressure leak was sought by less than one-third of the MAR. In case of leakage, a mobilization of the ML or the patient's head was performed first. In second intention, nearly a quarter of MAR changed technique for the benefit of oral intubation. Only 50% of responders used LM as a rescue technique in case of difficult intubation and ventilation. Experts had less insertion failure and laryngospasm. Complications and medico-legal suites are few. CONCLUSIONS: Variability of practice may be explained by low-grade recommendations in the literature. LM insertion in case of difficult intubation/ventilation to provide adequate oxygenation and should be formally reminded to clinicians.

[Epidural analgesia apart from obstetrics: a survey of practice]. / Enquête de pratique sur l'analgésie péridurale en dehors de l'obstétrique.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the current use of epidural anesthesia (EA) apart from obstetrics, and to explain the reasons of its low utilization. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. METHODS: A survey of practice with a self-questionnaire was sent by e-mail and available on Internet. Answers were compared between groups doing or not an epidural analgesia with exact Fisher tests (P<0.05 statistically significant). RESULTS: Among the 176 anesthesiologists who answered to the questionnaire, only 21.4% never used epidural analgesia. The main reasons were alternatives therapeutics such as PCA with opioids or TAP block (24/38 vs. 46/140). TAP block was the most common alternative used by more than 50% of anesthesiologists. Loss of competence (4/30 vs. 0/39) was rarely the reason to its low utilization. The low accessibility to specialized postoperative units was recognized in both groups as a limiting factor to do an epidural but not the fear of neurological complications. Those who never perform epidural analgesia were statistically more often physicians between 40 and 50 years (12/38 vs. 19/140). Heparin, aspirin and clopidogrel are no longer contraindications according to anesthesiologists less than 40 years old (50/68 vs. 31/68; 44/68 vs. 31/68; 37/68 vs. 23/68 respectively) but not for older. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural analgesia is performed more often by younger anesthesiologists. This survey suggests the need of specific postoperative area to allow anesthesiologist to perform and supervise safely this technique. Recommendations of the French society of Anesthesiologists are also poorly applied.

Histopathologic evaluation of arterial wall response to 5 neurovascular mechanical thrombectomy devices in a swine model.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Five commercial devices are available for mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke. This study evaluated and compared the resultant arterial damage from these devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Wall damage after 4 wall-contact devices (the Merci retriever, Catch thromboembolectomy system, and Solitaire FR revascularization devices of 4 and 6 mm) and 1 aspiration device (the Penumbra System) was evaluated in the superficial femoral arteries of 20 male swine. Each device was tested with and without intraluminal clot. Twenty control vessels were not subjected to any intervention. Acute histopathologic changes were evaluated. RESULTS: In the device samples, endothelial denudation (72.8 ± 29.4% versus 0.9 ± 1.9%, P < .0001), medial layer edema (52 ± 35.9% versus 18.1 ± 27.8%, P = .004), and mural thrombus (5.3 ± 14.2% versus 0%, P = .05) were found to a greater extent compared with the control samples. The aspiration device provoked more intimal layer (100 ± 79.1% versus 58.8 ± 48.9%, P = .27) and medial layer (75 ± 35.4% versus 46.3 ± 34.8%, P = .13) edema than the wall-contact devices. CONCLUSIONS: All devices caused vascular injuries extending into the medial layer. The aspiration device was associated with more intimal and medial layer edema, compared with the wall-contact devices except for the Catch thromboembolectomy system.