Search

The effect of one-lung ventilation (OLV) strategy based on low tidal volume (TV), application of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and alveolar recruitment maneuvers (ARM) to reduce postoperative acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and pulmonary complications (PPCs) compared with higher TV without PEEP and ARM strategy in adult patients undergoing lobectomy or pneumonectomy has not been well established. Multicenter, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial. Sixteen Italian hospitals. A total of 880 patients undergoing elective major lung resection. Patients were randomized to receive lower tidal volume (LTV group: 4 mL/kg predicted body weight, PEEP of 5 cmH 2 O, and ARMs) or higher tidal volume (HTL group: 6 mL/kg predicted body weight, no PEEP, and no ARMs). After OLV, until extubation, both groups were ventilated using a tidal volume of 8 mL/kg and a PEEP value of 5 cmH 2 O. The primary outcome was the incidence of in-hospital ARDS. Secondary outcomes were the in-hospital rate of PPCs, major cardiovascular events, unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission, in-hospital mortality, ICU length of stay, and in-hospital length of stay. ARDS occurred in 3 of 438 patients (0.7%, 95% CI 0.1-2.0) and in 1 of 442 patients (0.2%, 95% CI 0-1.4) in the LTV and HTV group, respectively (Risk ratio: 3.03 95% CI 0.32-29, p = 0.372). Pulmonary complications occurred in 125 of 438 patients (28.5%, 95% CI 24.5-32.9) and in 136 of 442 patients (30.8%, 95% CI 26.6-35.2) in the LTV and HTV group, respectively (risk ratio: 0.93, 95% CI 0.76-1.14, p = 0.507). The incidence of major complications, in-hospital mortality, and unplanned ICU admission, ICU and in-hospital length of stay were comparable in both groups. In conclusion, among adult patients undergoing elective lung resection, an OLV with lower tidal volume, PEEP 5 cmH 2 O, and ARMs and a higher tidal volume strategy resulted in low ARDS incidence and comparable postoperative complications, in-hospital length of stay, and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In a prospective study we compared the surgical outcome, length of hospital stay, complications and patient satisfaction for patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy (LM) under spinal anaesthesia (SA) in the sitting position (23 patients) to those of another cohort who underwent LM under general anaesthesia (GA) in the prone or genu-pectoral position during the same time period (238 patients). We aimed to determine: (i) if epidural anaesthesia is safe for lumbar microdiscectomy; and (ii) if placing the patient in a sitting position confers an advantage in performing the operation. For all patients we calculated the time from the end of the operation to the first spontaneous urination and to the first administration of analgesic drugs. Before being discharged, patients were asked to give an opinion on the quality of analgesia obtained by epidural anaesthesia and on the sitting position used. No patient had any complications linked to epidural anaesthesia and only one patient experienced a small dural tear as a surgical complication. Twenty of 23 patients expressed satisfaction with the level of analgesia obtained and only three considered it poor. All patients found the sitting position comfortable. Advantages of the sitting position for surgery include better comfort for the patient, potential to recreate a load condition similar to the one that takes place during orthostasis and a “cleaner” operative field that uses gravity to drain blood. Of greatest concern is the possibility of the patient developing a dural tear and subsequent leaking of cerebrospinal fluid, which could also be a source of surgical complications. Currently, epidural anaesthesia allows a reduction in anaesthetic and surgical times, anaesthetic complications and, consequently, hospitalization period. Further analysis of the sitting position for the patient during surgery is required to fully assess the advantages and disadvantages of this method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]