Search

Background: Caudal epidural block (CEB) may be beneficial in anorectal surgery because its use may extend postoperative analgesia. This dose-finding study aimed to estimate the minimum effective anesthetic concentrations for 95% patients(MEC95) of 20 ml or 25 ml of ropivacaine in with CEB. Patients and methods: In this double-blind, prospective study, the concentration of ropivacaine administered in 20 ml and 25 ml for ultrasound-guided CEB were determined using the sample up-and-down sequential allocation study design of binary response variables. The first participant was given 0.5% ropivacaine. Depending on whether a block was successful or unsuccessful, the concentration of local anesthesia was decreased or increased by 0.025% in the next patient. Every five minutes for 30 min, the sensory blockade using a pin-prick sensation at S3 dermatome compared to at T6 dermatome were evaluated every 5 min within 30 min. An effective CEB was defined as a a reduction of sensation at S3 dermatome and the existence of flaccid anal sphincter. Anesthesia was considered successful if the surgeon could perform the surgery without additional anesthesia. We determined the MEC50 using the Dixon and Massey up-and-down method and estimated the MEC95 using probit regression. Results: The concentration of ropivacaine administered in 20 ml for CEB ranged from 0.2% to 0.5%. Probit regression with a bias-corrected Morris 95% CI derived by bootstrapping showed an MEC50 and MEC 50 of ropivacaine for anorectal surgical anesthesia were 0.27% (95% CI, 0.24 to 0.31) and 0.36%(95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61). The concentration of ropivacaine administered in 25 ml for CEB ranged from 0.175 to 0.5. Probit regression with a bias-corrected Morris 95% CI derived by bootstrapping showed an MEC50 and MEC95 for CEB were 0.24% (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.27) and 0.32% (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.54). Conclusion: With ultrasound-guided CEB, the MEC95 of 0.36% ropivacaine at 20 ml and 0.32% ropivacaine at 25 ml provide adequate surgical anesthesia/analgesia 95% of patients undergoing anorectoal surgery. Trial registration: Clinicaltrails.gov: Retrospectively registered (ChiCTR2100042954; Registration date:1/2, 2021). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous studies have investigated the vitamin D status in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and its relationship with HBV replication, the results however were inconsistent. The present meta-analysis was carried out to compare the vitamin D levels between patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and healthy controls, and to determine whether vitamin D levels were correlated with HBV viral loads significantly.Methods: A systematic search was conducted via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to identify eligible studies until September 28, 2017. We calculated pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to quantitatively estimate the difference of vitamin D levels between CHB patients and controls. In addition, correlation between serum vitamin D levels and HBV viral loads was defined by summary correlation coefficient (r value) and the corresponding 95% CI.Results: A total of 7 studies involving 814 CHB patients and 696 healthy controls were included. A significantly decreased vitamin D levels was found in CHB patients compared with healthy controls: pooled MD (95% CI) was - 2.03 ng/mL (- 2.60, - 1.46). Latitude-stratified subgroup analysis indicated this difference was more obvious in low latitude areas, with a bigger pooled MD (95% CI) of - 2.72 ng/mL (- 4.57, - 0.87). In addition, we observed an inverse correlation between serum vitamin D levels and HBV viral loads: pooled r (95% CI) was - 0.41(- 0.54, - 0.27).Conclusions: Our results showed that vitamin D levels were lower in CHB patients than that of healthy controls and inversely correlated with HBV viral loads, although future comprehensive studies are needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]