Search

Intrathecal morphine (ITM) is a widely used technique for postcaesarean section analgesia but entails a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is an alternative.We tested the hypothesis that a TAP block including clonidine reduces the incidence of PONV after caesarean section when compared with ITM.A randomised, controlled, double-blinded study.Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland, from October 2013 to February 2017.A total of 182 patients undergoing elective caesarean section were studied. Reasons for noninclusion were complicated pregnancy, contraindication to spinal anaesthesia or TAP block, extreme weight or height, allergy to any medication or previous median abdominal incision.Patients were allocated randomly to one of two groups (quadruple blinded): 100 μg of morphine added to the spinal local anaesthetic or a bilateral TAP block with 20 ml of ropivacaine 0.375% + 75 μg of clonidine on each side.The primary outcome measure was the total number of patients presenting with PONV at 24 h. Secondary aims were to compare other adverse effects (pruritus, respiratory depression, hypotension, bradycardia, sedation), analgesic efficacy and the quality of postoperative recovery.At 24 h, there was no significant difference between ITM and TAP groups in the total number of patients presenting with PONV: 17/92 patients (18.5%, 95% confidence interval 11.1 to 27.9) and 27/88 patients (30.7%, 95% confidence interval 21.3 to 41.4) in TAP and ITM groups, respectively (P = 0.065). Pain scores at 6 h and cumulative morphine consumption at 24 h were lower in the ITM group (P 0.0001 for morphine consumption at 24 h). The incidence of hypotension was higher in the TAP group (54.3 vs. 29.2%, P = 0.0006). Maternal satisfaction was high and not different between groups.A TAP block with clonidine and local anaesthetic does not reduce significantly the incidence of PONV compared with ITM. We confirm the superiority of ITM on acute postcaesarean section analgesia compared with a TAP block, even with clonidine as an adjunct.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01931215.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Several video and optical laryngoscopes have been developed but few have been compared in terms of their learning curves and efficacy. Using a manikin with normal airways we compared the Glidescope, the McGrath, the Airtraq and the Macintosh laryngoscopes. METHODS: Sixty anaesthetists (20 staff, 20 residents and 20 nurses) participated in the study. All subjects were novice with the new devices. They intubated a Laerdal SimMan manikin (with normal airway) five times in a row with all laryngoscopes. The sequence of use of the devices was randomized. Before using a device, a presentation and a demonstration were provided. Outcome measures were: duration of intubation attempt, modified Cormack grades, dental trauma and difficulty of use. RESULTS: The Airtraq had the most favourable learning curve and mirrored the Macintosh after two intubation attempts. The Glidescope and McGrath had steep learning curves but, after five attempts, differences persisted when compared with the Macintosh and Airtraq. Time taken to visualize the glottis was similar but time taken to position the endotracheal tube was shorter for the Airtraq when compared with the Glidescope and McGrath. Indirect laryngoscopes seemed to have advantages over the Macintosh blade in terms of laryngeal exposure and potential dental trauma. CONCLUSIONS: In a 'normal airway' model, intubation skills with the new devices appeared to be rapidly mastered. The three indirect laryngoscopes provided a better glottic exposure than the Macintosh. The Airtraq displayed the most favourable learning curve, probably reflecting differences in the techniques of endotracheal tube placement: guiding channel versus steering technique.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Distractions and interruptions during clinical activities can decrease performance and increase the risk of error. The incidence and impact of distracting events on anaesthetic teams during the critical phases of general anaesthesia are unknown. The purpose of this study was to quantify and analyse the frequency, the source and the impact of these events during the period of induction of general anaesthesia. METHODS: Twenty-nine anaesthetic team members participated in the study. Anaesthetic teams were videotaped during the induction period of a general anaesthesia. All videotapes were reviewed by two investigators using a scoring system in order to categorize the distracting events according to their origin, source, nature, duration, impact on patient and consequences on team activities. A total of 37 videotapes of general anaesthesia inductions for urgent surgical cases were analysed. RESULTS: The results show that the sources of distracting events are multiple and diverse. Distracting events occurred frequently (median five per video) and at least one event was present for 39.5% of the total observed period. They had a significant impact on the activity of the team members during 21.8% of the total observed period and had a negative impact on patient management in one-fifth of the cases. CONCLUSION: During the induction phase of general anaesthesia, distracting events are frequent and affect significantly the task at hand. Future research should design and implement preventive strategies to minimize the occurrence of unnecessary distracting events during this critical phase of anaesthesia when calm and vigilance should prevail.