Airway Management in the Operating Room and Interventional Suites in Known or Suspected COVID-19 Adult Patients: A Practical Review.

Current evidence suggests that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread occurs via respiratory droplets (particles >5 µm) and possibly through aerosol. The rate of transmission remains high during airway management. This was evident during the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic where those who were involved in tracheal intubation had a higher risk of infection than those who were not involved (odds ratio 6.6). We describe specific airway management principles for patients with known or suspected COVID-19 disease for an array of critical care and procedural settings. We conducted a thorough search of the available literature of airway management of COVID-19 across a variety of international settings. In addition, we have analyzed various medical professional body recommendations for common procedural practices such as interventional cardiology, gastroenterology, and pulmonology. A systematic process that aims to protect the operators involved via appropriate personal protective equipment, avoidance of unnecessary patient contact and minimalization of periprocedural aerosol generation are key components to successful airway management. For operating room cases requiring general anesthesia or complex interventional procedures, tracheal intubation should be the preferred option. For interventional procedures, when tracheal intubation is not indicated, cautious conscious sedation appears to be a reasonable approach. Awake intubation should be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary. Extubation is a high-risk procedure for aerosol and droplet spread and needs thorough planning and preparation. As updates and modifications in the management of COVID-19 are still evolving, local guidelines, appraised at regular intervals, are vital in optimizing clinical management.

The intraoperative use of non-opioid adjuvant analgesic agents: a survey of anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Opioids have long been the mainstay of drugs used for intra-operative analgesia. Due to their well-known short and long term side effects, the use of non-opioid analgesics has often been encouraged to decrease the dose of opioid required and minimise these side effects. The trends in using non-opioid adjuvants among Australian Anaesthetists have not been examined before. This study has attempted to determine the use of non-opioid analgesics as part of an opioid sparing practice among anaesthetists across Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: A survey was distributed to 985 anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand. The questions focused on frequency of use of different adjuvants and any reasons for not using individual agents. The agents surveyed were paracetamol, dexamethasone, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs), tramadol, ketamine, anticonvulsants, intravenous lidocaine, systemic alpha 2 agonists, magnesium sulphate, and beta blockers. Descriptive statistics were used and data are expressed as a percentage of response for each drug. RESULTS: The response rate was 33.4%. Paracetamol was the most frequently used; with 72% of the respondents describing frequent usage (defined as usage above 70% of the time); followed by parecoxib (42% reported frequent usage) and dexamethasone (35% reported frequent usage). Other adjuvants were used much less commonly, with anaesthetists reporting their frequent usage at less than 10%. The majority of respondents suggested that they would never consider dexmedetomidine, magnesium, esmolol, pregabalin or gabapentin. Perceived disincentives for the use of analgesic adjuvants varied. The main concerns were side effects, lack of evidence for benefit, and anaesthetists' experience. The latter two were the major factors for magnesium, dexmedetomidine and esmolol. CONCLUSION: The uptake of tramadol, lidocaine and magnesium amongst respondents from anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand was poor. Gabapentin, pregabalin, dexmedetomidine and esmolol use was relatively rare. Most anaesthetists need substantial evidence before introducing a non-opioid adjuvant into their routine practice. Future trials should focus on assessing the opioid sparing benefits and relative risk of using individual non-opioid adjuvants in the perioperative period for specific procedures and patient populations.

Perioperative diabetic ketoacidosis associated with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) with near-normal blood glucose concentrations, termed euglycaemic ketoacidosis (EDKA), is an adverse effect associated with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). Guidelines are still evolving concerning the perioperative management of patients on SGLT2i. We performed a systematic review of published reports of DKA from SGLT2i in the surgical setting to understand better the clinical presentation and characteristics of SGLT2i-associated DKA. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and ProQuest for reports of perioperative DKA involving SGLT2i up to January 2019. RESULTS: Forty-two reports of EDKA and five cases of hyperglycaemic diabetic ketoacidosis (HDKA) were identified from 33 publications. Canagliflozin was implicated in 26 cases. Presentation time varied from a few hours up to 6 weeks after operation. Precipitating factors may include diabetes medication changes, diet modifications, and intercurrent illnesses. There were 13 cases (12 EDKA and one HDKA) of bariatric surgery, 10 of them noted very-low-calorie diet regimes as a precipitating factor. No precise association between interruption of SGLT2i and the occurrence of DKA could be identified. Seven patients required mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury was noted in five. Five cases needed imaging to rule out anastomotic leak and pulmonary embolism, all of them revealed negative findings. Outcome data were available in 32 cases, all of them recovered completely. CONCLUSIONS: EDKA is likely to be under-recognised because of its atypical presentation and may delay the diagnosis. Understanding this clinical entity, vigilance towards monitoring plasma/capillary ketones helps in early identification and assists in the management.

Anatomical and ultrasound description of two transmuscular quadratus lumborum block approaches at L2 level and their application in abdominal surgery.

The transmuscular quadratus lumborum (TQL) block is one of the recently evolved myofascial blocks utilised in abdominal surgery. It involves injecting local anaesthetic into the fascial plane anterior to the thoracolumbar fascia. This block has previously been described with a transverse oblique paramedian approach at the L2 level in the sitting position. We describe a TQL block at the same level in the lateral position using a transverse posterolateral approach to provide analgesia for patients undergoing abdominal surgery. We elaborate on these two approaches of TQL block at the L2 level, in relation to the anatomy, sonoanatomy and technical aspects.

Continuous transversus abdominis plane block vs intermittent bolus for analgesia after abdominal surgery: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Continuous and intermittent bolus techniques of transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks have been used for analgesia after abdominal surgery. Although both are effective, there are no studies comparing them. The aim of this study is to compare analgesia and cost-effectiveness between these groups. METHODS: After obtaining ethical approval, 20 American Society of Anesthesiologists ASA grade I to III patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery were recruited with 10 patients allocated to each arm. Bilateral ultrasound-guided TAP blocks were performed with an initial bolus of 0.5% ropivacaine 20 mL per side, followed by catheter insertion. After surgery, the continuous infusion group received 0.2% ropivacaine 8 mL/hour on each side and the intermittent bolus group received doses of 0.2% ropivacaine 20 mL per side every 8 hours for 48 hours. Both groups received intravenous fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia and regular oral paracetamol. Parameters recorded included numerical rating scores for pain and post-operative analgesic consumption at baseline (time 0) and at 1 hour, 1 day and 2 days post-operatively. The duration of catheter insertion, complications, patient satisfaction and information regarding costs were also recorded. Patient satisfaction was assessed utilizing a 4-point "Likert" scale on day 2 and on day 30. Pain and Likert scores were analysed by non-parametric sum rank test and all two-sampled t-tests assumed unequal variances. RESULTS: There was no difference between duration of TAP block, anesthetic and surgical technique and length of stay (p=0.23). Primary outcomes: pain scores at rest and cough were not significantly different (p=0.20) between the groups. Satisfaction scores were similar at day 2 and 30 (p=0.77). However, the bolus group was more cost-effective (AU$347.98 vs AU$429.43). CONCLUSION: Continuous or bolus TAP blocks are effective analgesic techniques in abdominal surgery, with bolus technique being more economical.

The effect of perioperative esmolol on early postoperative pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Esmolol has been shown to improve postoperative pain and reduce opioid requirements. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of perioperative esmolol as an adjunct on early postoperative pain intensity, recovery profile, and anesthetic requirement. Databases were searched for randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the effects of esmolol during general anesthesia. Primary outcomes were related to early postoperative pain whereas secondary outcomes were related to emergence time, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and intraoperative anesthetic requirement. Nineteen trials were identified involving 936 patients (esmolol = 470, placebo = 466). In esmolol group, numeric pain scores at rest in the immediate postoperative period were reduced by 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.97-0.35, I2 = 96.7%) out of 10. Opioid consumption was also decreased in the postanesthesia care unit compared with placebo, mean difference of 5.1 mg (95% CI: 7.0-3.2, I2 = 96.9%) morphine IV equivalents; a 69% reduction in opioid rescue dosing was noted (odds ratio [OR]: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.16-0.80, I2 = 0.0%). A 61% reduction in postoperative nausea and vomiting was also evident (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.20-0.75, I2 = 60.7%). A reduction in propofol induction dose was noted in the esmolol group (mean difference: -0.53 mg/kg, 95% CI: -0.63--0.44, I2 = 0.0%). A decrease in end-tidal desflurane equivalent (mean difference: 1.70%, 95% CI: -2.39--1.02, I2 = 92.0%) and intraoperative opioid usage (fentanyl equivalent, mean difference: 440 µg, 95% CI: -637--244, I2 = 99.6%) was observed in esmolol group. Esmolol had no effect on the emergence time. Perioperative esmolol as an adjunct may reduce postoperative pain intensity, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea vomiting. Given the heterogeneity, larger clinical trials are warranted to confirm these findings.

Lingual nerve neuropraxia following use of the Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme.

Cranial nerve injury is a rare complication with the use of supraglottic airway devices. A case of lingual nerve injury following the use of a Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme in a 45 year old woman is presented. A review of the literature regarding lingual nerve injury as a complication of the supraglottic airway is also presented.

Psychological predictors of substantial pain reduction after minimally invasive radiofrequency and injection treatments for chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: In this post hoc observational study, we investigated psychological predictors of outcome after radiofrequency and injection treatments, commonly performed in the management of chronic low back pain (CLBP). DESIGN & SETTING: Data, comprising 161 patients (29 eventually lost to follow-up), were obtained from two randomized controlled trials on efficacy of radiofrequency treatment for back pain and sciatica. Subsequently patients were additionally treated in an open prospective follow-up period. Although all groups presented a significant visual analog scale reduction after 3 and 12 months, no additional pain relief after radiofrequency compared with injection treatment was found. Both trial populations showed sufficient similarities. A principal component (factor) analysis was performed on baseline psychometric tests, SF-36, and physical activity variables. We constructed five clinically relevant psychological profiles: "psychologically negative,""adaptive manager,""rigid qualities,""supporting partner," and "strong ego." These were examined as possible predictors of significant pain relief using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The "psychologically negative" dimension showed a negative and the "adaptive manager" dimension a positive prognostic effect on outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive treatment for CLBP leads to significant pain reduction, including potential placebo effects. However, psychologically vulnerable patients, characterized by, among others, reduced life control, disturbed mood, negative self-efficacy, catastrophizing, high anxiety levels, inadequacy, and poor mental health, tend not to respond to this treatment. Patients characterized by a.o. reduced pain and interference levels, positive expectations, and reasonable physical and social functioning, react more favorably. From both a clinical and a financial perspective, psychosocial evaluation and selection of patients seems appropriate, before applying minimally invasive procedures for CLBP.

Radiofrequency denervation of lumbar facet joints in the treatment of chronic low back pain: a randomized, double-blind, sham lesion-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Radiofrequency facet joint denervation procedures have been common practice for 2 decades in treatment of chronic low back pain. We designed this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham treatment controlled trial to determine the efficacy of radiofrequency facet joint denervation, as it is routinely performed. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were low back pain, duration more than 6 months, and >or=50% Visual Analog Scale (VAS) reduction on diagnostic block. Exclusion criteria were prior radiofrequency treatment, radicular syndrome, coagulopathies, specific allergies, cancer, and pregnancy. A total of 81 out of 462 patients were randomized to undergo radiofrequency facet joint denervation or sham treatment. The first evaluation was carried out 3 months after treatment. Primary outcome was determined with a combined outcome measure comprising VAS, physical activities, and analgesic intake, from a twice-weekly recorded diary. Secondary outcome measures were the separate diary parameters, global perceived effect (complete relief, >50% relief, no effect, pain increase), and SF-36 Quality of Life Questionnaire. RESULTS: There were no dropouts before the first evaluation. The combined outcome measure showed no differences between radio- frequency facet joint denervation (n=40; success 27.5%) and sham (n=41; success 29.3%) (P=0.86). The VAS in both groups improved (P<0.001). Global perceived effect improved after radiofrequency facet joint denervation (P<0.05). The other secondary outcome parameters showed no significant differences. Relevant costs were evaluated. DISCUSSION: The combined outcome measure and VAS showed no difference between radiofrequency and sham, though in both groups, significant VAS improvement occurred. The global perceived effect was in favor of radiofrequency. In selected patients, radiofrequency facet joint denervation appears to be more effective than sham treatment.

Radiofrequency lumbar facet denervation: a comparative study of the reproducibility of lesion size after 2 current radiofrequency techniques.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Radiofrequency facet denervation procedures are widely used for the treatment of chronic low-back pain. Currently, both temperature-controlled and voltage-controlled techniques are used. In this combined in vivo and in vitro study, the electrophysiologic consequences and the effects on lesion size of these techniques were determined. METHODS: Thirty-three patients were randomly assigned to receive a lumbar radiofrequency facet denervation by using either temperature-controlled (80 degrees C, 60 seconds) or voltage-controlled (20 V, 60 s) mode. Electrophysiologic parameters in both groups during radiofrequency lesioning were registered. Observed differences between electrodes were quantified and interpreted, using lesion-size data from egg-white experiments. RESULTS: Seventeen patients in the temperature group were treated with a total of 55 radiofrequency lesions, all considered technically adequate. In the voltage-controlled group, 16 patients received 63 lesions. Of these, 44 (69.8%) procedures were found to be technically inadequate. Voltage-controlled radiofrequency lesioning resulted in uncontrollable fluctuations of temperature, with resultant uncontrollable variations in lesion size. Temperature-controlled mode created reproducible lesion sizes. CONCLUSIONS: There is no consistent relation between voltage and the temperature obtained during radiofrequency lumbar facet denervation. Temperature-controlled radiofrequency lesioning is preferred to create reproducible lesion sizes.

Radiofrequency lesioning of dorsal root ganglia for chronic lumbosacral radicular pain: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Results of observational studies have shown pain reduction with percutaneous radiofrequency lesioning of dorsal root ganglia for lumbosacral radicular pain, but there are few randomised controlled trials. We aimed to assess the efficacy of radiofrequency lesioning of dorsal root ganglia for lumbosacral radicular pain. METHODS: We screened 1001 patients, who were mostly referred by their family doctor, in four hospitals for a double-blind randomised trial. 83 patients met inclusion criteria and thus were randomly assigned to receive a radiofrequency lesion or control treatment of the involved dorsal root ganglion. Control treatment was done in the same way as radiofrequency lesioning, but without radiofrequency current. Preoperatively and during 3-month follow-up, patients reported visual analogue leg-pain and back-pain scores, physical impairment, and use of analgesics in a diary. Primary outcome was success or failure of treatment, defined by a multidimensional decision rule, which included median outcome variables from the diary. Post-hoc analysis for possible covariate interference with outcome variables was done. Primary outcome data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. FINDINGS: 45 patients were assigned radiofrequency lesioning and 38 control treatment. Three patients dropped out before 3 months. After 3 months, seven (16%) of 44 patients treated with radiofrequency lesioning and nine (25%) of 36 in the control group had successful treatment (difference -9.1% [95% CI -33.0 to 12.0], p=0.43). No differences between groups in side-effects were seen. INTERPRETATION: Lumbosacral radiofrequency lesioning of dorsal root ganglia failed to show advantage over control treatment with local anaesthetics. Thus, its use as routine treatment in lumbosacral radicular pain should not be advocated.