An assessment of the effectiveness of regional analgesia after VATS measured by an objective method for assessing testosterone, cortisol, α-amylase, sIgA, and ß-endorphin levels - a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Thoracic surgeries are associated with intense postoperative pain. General opioid analgesia is still the main anaesthetic method. Due to the large number of opioid-induced side effects, alternative methods of pain relief are sought. One of them is the use of balanced analgesia, which consists of regional analgesia, non-opioid painkillers, and small doses of opioids. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of preoperative thoracic paravertebral block (ThPVB) in the treatment of postoperative pain after video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) by measuring hormone levels in blood serum or saliva. It was a randomised, open-label study conducted in a single university hospital setting between May 2018 and September 2019. In total, 119 patients were scheduled for elective video-assisted thoracic surgery. Performed interventions included: preoperative thoracic paravertebral block with 0.5% bupivacaine, followed by postoperative oxycodone combined with nonopioid analgesics. Follow-up period comprised first 24 hours and one, two, and six months after surgery. Main outcomes were measured by pain intensity assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the levels of the following hormones: testosterone, cortisol, α-amylase activity, sIgA, and ß-endorphin. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were randomised into two groups and, of these, 49 were subsequently excluded from the analysis. The final analysis included 37 patients from the study group and 33 from the control group. There were no statistically significant differences in the analysed parameters the relative change T1-T0. There was a tendency towards statistical significance in the relative change T2-T0 in testosterone levels. At rest, no statistically significant differences were found between groups and time in the percentage of patients with NRS ≥ 1. During cough, the percentage of patients with NRS ≥ 1 was higher at T1 and T2 time points in the ThPVB group. Of the factors considered, only α-amylase levels statistically significantly increased the chance for higher NRS score after a month [OR = 1.013; 95% PU: 1.001-1.025; p < 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: ThPVB is effective and safe for patients undergoing VATS. It can be an effective alternative for general anaesthesia using high doses of opioids.

Effect of dexmedetomidine or propofol sedation on haemodynamic stability of patients after thoracic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine and propofol are commonly used sedative agents in non-invasive ventilation as they allow for easy arousal and are relatively well controllable. Moreover dexmedetomidine is associated with low risk of respiratory depression. However, both agents are associated with significant hemodynamic side effects. The primary objective of this study is to compare the influence of both drugs on hemodynamic effects in patients after thoracic surgical procedures receiving dexmedetomidine or propofol for noninvasive postoperative ventilation. METHODS: A prospective, randomised, observational study University Hospital. Interventions: Continuous sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol for six hours of postoperative non-invasive ventilation after thoracic surgery, with concomitant use of continuous epidural analgesia. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients (20 dexmedetomidine and 18 propofol) were included in the analysis. The primary outcomes of this study is that heart rate, systolic and mean arterial blood pressure did not differ significantly between the groups, but diastolic arterial blood pressure was significantly higher in propofol group. Comparison analysis of epinephrine usage did not reveal significant differences between the groups. Cardiac output (CO) and cardiac index (CI) analysis did not show significant differences between the groups, but there is a clear tendency of lower values of CO/CI in group receiving propofol. We also observed similar tendency in stroke volume index (SVI) and stroke volume variation (SVV) values, but also those differences did not reach statistical significance. Systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) values were higher in propofol group, exceeding reference values, but similarly, the difference between the groups was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The main finding of this study is that dexmedetomidine and propofol provide similar advantages in haemodynamic stability during short-term sedation for non-invasive ventilation after thoracic surgical procedures in patients receiving continuous epidural analgesia.

A comparison of selective and conventional spinal anaesthesia for ambulatory surgery.

BACKGROUND: Selective spinal anaesthesia is the practice of employing minimal doses of intrathecal agents so that only the nerve roots supplying a specific area and only the modalities that require to be anaesthetised are affected. The study is based on the hypothesis that small dose lidocaine spinal anaesthesia may be adequate for elective surgical procedures, providing limited motor and sensory block, and thus enabling earlier patient's discharge. The aim of this study was the comparison of the low and the conventional dose of lidocaine spinal anaesthesia discharge time. METHODS: The study was a prospective, randomized controlled single-blind trial, with 84 patients enrolled. Patients in study group (SS-L, Selective Spinal Lidocaine) were administered 3 mL of a 0.8% lidocaine solution containing 24 mg of lidocaine and 15 µg of fentanyl for spinal anaesthesia. Patients in the control group (CD-L, Conventional Dose Lidocaine) received 5 mL of a 1% lidocaine solution containing 50 mg of lidocaine and 25 µg of fentanyl for spinal anaesthesia. Discharge time was evaluated. RESULTS: In the SS-L group time to discharge were shorter (P < 0.01) compared to the CD-L group. CONCLUSION: Selective spinal anaesthesia with low dose of lidocaine decreases the time of patient discharge compared with conventional lidocaine dose spinal anaesthesia.

Hypersensitivity lo local anesthetics.

Using local anaesthetics in daily practice, particularly by anaesthetists and dentists, is connected with the risk of side effects. Therefore, the observation of side effects, carrying out detailed research (according to the chart proposed in this study) and conducting specialist examinations is of the highest importance. There is a variety of side effects that could occur during local anaesthesia procedures, with the intensity ranging from clinically unimportant to life threatening. Clinicians' major concerns are the appearance of various hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis. Healthcare providers responsible for the administration of local anaesthetics should be able to detect hypersensitivity reactions to implement appropriate treatment and then choose highly selected diagnostic procedures. The final diagnosis should be based on specific medical history; documentation, including a description of the case and measurement of tryptase activity; skin tests; and provocation trials. Screening tests are not recommended in populations without hypersensitivity to local anaesthestics in their medical history.