Search

Abstract Introduction There is a sizable niche for a minimally invasive analgesic technique that could facilitate ambulatory video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Our study aimed to determine the analgesic potential of a single-shot erector spinae plane (ESP) block for VATS. The primary objective was the total hydromorphone consumption with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) 24 h after surgery. Methods We conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blind study with patients scheduled for VATS in two major university-affiliated hospital centres. We randomized 52 patients into two groups: a single-shot ESP block using bupivacaine or an ESP block with normal saline (control). We administered a preoperative and postoperative (24 h) quality of recovery (QoR-15) questionnaire and assessed postoperative pain using a verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS) score. We evaluated the total standardized intraoperative fentanyl administration, total postoperative hydromorphone consumption (PCA; primary endpoint), and the incidence of adverse effects. Results There was no difference in the primary objective, hydromorphone consumption at 24 h (7.6 (4.4) mg for the Bupivacaine group versus 8.1 (4.2) mg for the Control group). Secondary objectives and incidence of adverse events were not different between the two groups at any time during the first 24 h following surgery. Conclusion Our multi-centre randomized, controlled, double-blinded study found no advantage of an ESP block over placebo for VATS for opioid consumption, pain, or QoR-15 scores. Further studies are ongoing to establish the benefits of using a denser block (single-shot paravertebral with a continuous ESP block), which may provide a better quality of analgesia.

Introduction: There is a sizable niche for a minimally invasive analgesic technique that could facilitate ambulatory video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Our study aimed to determine the analgesic potential of a single-shot erector spinae plane (ESP) block for VATS. The primary objective was the total hydromorphone consumption with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) 24 h after surgery., Methods: We conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blind study with patients scheduled for VATS in two major university-affiliated hospital centres. We randomized 52 patients into two groups: a single-shot ESP block using bupivacaine or an ESP block with normal saline (control). We administered a preoperative and postoperative (24 h) quality of recovery (QoR-15) questionnaire and assessed postoperative pain using a verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS) score. We evaluated the total standardized intraoperative fentanyl administration, total postoperative hydromorphone consumption (PCA; primary endpoint), and the incidence of adverse effects., Results: There was no difference in the primary objective, hydromorphone consumption at 24 h (7.6 (4.4) mg for the Bupivacaine group versus 8.1 (4.2) mg for the Control group). Secondary objectives and incidence of adverse events were not different between the two groups at any time during the first 24 h following surgery., Conclusion: Our multi-centre randomized, controlled, double-blinded study found no advantage of an ESP block over placebo for VATS for opioid consumption, pain, or QoR-15 scores. Further studies are ongoing to establish the benefits of using a denser block (single-shot paravertebral with a continuous ESP block), which may provide a better quality of analgesia., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

During the perioperative period, nociception control is certainly one of the anesthesiologist's main objectives when assuming care of a patient. There exists some literature demonstrating that the nociceptive stimuli experienced during surgery are responsible for peripheral and central sensitization phenomena, which can in turn lead to persistent postsurgical pain. An individualized approach to the evaluation and treatment of perioperative nociception is beneficial in order to avoid the sensitization phenomena that leads to prolonged postoperative pain and to minimize the consumption of opiates and their adverse effects. In terms of sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values when compared to heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP), recent literature has shown that the NOL variation (ΔNOL) is the best index to distinguish noxious from non-noxious stimuli. Chronic treatment with β1-adrenergic antagonists may constitute a limitation to the use of the NOL index. β1-adrenergic antagonists induce a depressive action on the heart rate, which results in a limitation of its variability after a noxious stimulus. Since heart rate and heart rate variability are two parameters integrated into the NOL index, the validity of the NOL index in a population of patients receiving β1-adrenergic antagonists has not yet been determined. Our study sought to explore the NOL index, the BIS, and the heart rate variation in a group of patients under chronic treatment with β1-adrenergic antagonists submitted to standardized noxious stimulus under general anesthesia. We then compared those results to a control group of patients from our previous study (CJA group) that received no β1-adrenergic antagonist chronic treatment. The patients in this study were subjected to a standardized anesthetic protocol from induction up to 3 min after a standardized tetanic stimulus to the ulnar nerve at a frequency of 100 Hz and an amperage of 70 mA, for a duration of 30 s. Data were electronically recorded to obtain NOL, BIS, and heart rate values every 5 s for the duration of the protocol. The NOL maximal mean value reached after noxious stimulation was not different between our two cohorts (CJA: 30(14) versus BETANOL: 36(14) (p = 0.12)). There was no statistically significant difference between our cohorts in regards of the NOL AUC representing the variation of the NOL over a 180 s period (CJA: 595(356) versus BETANOL: 634(301) (p = 0.30)). However, a repeated measurement ANCOVA identified slight statistically significant differences between our cohorts in the peak of variation of the NOL index between 20 and 65 s after noxious stimulation, the NOL index of the cohort of beta-blocked patients being higher than the CJA patients. Moreover, the time to reach the maximum value was not different (CJA: 73(37) versus BETANOL: 63(41) (p = 0.35)). NOL sensitivity and specificity to detect a noxious stimulus under general anesthesia were similar in patients taking beta-blockers or not, and were better than those of heart rate and Bispectral index (AUC NOL 0.97, CI(0.92-1), versus AUC BIS 0.78, CI(0.64-0.89) and AUC HR 0.66, CI(0.5-0.8)). In conclusion, the NOL index is a reliable monitor to assess nociception in a population of patients under chronic beta-blocker therapy. Patients under such therapy achieve similar maximal NOL values over a 180 s period after a standardized noxious stimulus and the NOL variation over time, represented by the AUC is not significantly different from a cohort of non-beta-blocked patients. Whether the patient takes beta-blockers or not, sensitivity of the NOL index is greater than that seen for BIS index or heart rate to detect an experimental noxious stimulus under general anesthesia., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. part of Springer Nature.)

In 2005, the first facial vascularized composite allotransplant was performed in France. In May 2018, our team at Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, had the privilege to participate in the first facial transplant in Canada. Interdisciplinary collaboration, coordination, and communication formed the cornerstone of this medical undertaking and, ultimately, its success. This report details the anesthetic and organizational considerations of our experience.

Background: The impact of the anesthesia management during cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for the treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (CRPC) on postoperative outcomes might be of major importance in the process of postoperative recovery. It might have a significant impact on intra- and postoperative outcomes, but the evaluation of this impact seems to be under-reported. To investigate the question whether the anesthesia management was reported in previous studies done in this population and if it had any impact on postoperative outcomes, we propose to conduct a systematic review of the published literature., Methods: For this review, we will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). Medline/PubMed, Embase, EBM Reviews and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) will be systematically consulted for eligible studies without age, gender, ethnic, and language restriction. The goal of this review will be to assess whether anesthesia monitoring, dosing, and analgesia protocols were reported in this literature on this specific procedure and whether the impact of the anesthesia management on intraoperative safety and postoperative recovery was evaluated., Results: The results of this systematic review will allow to answer the initial question: has the impact of anesthesia management on intraoperative safety and patients' postoperative recovery already been studied and reported in the past for this type of major surgery? And does anesthesia have any impact on postoperative outcomes?, Discussion: In the hypothesis that the impact of anesthesia management on patients' postoperative recovery has never been studied, or very little reported in previous studies in this type of major surgery, it would be justified to conduct a randomized controlled trial on this specific objective., Registration: This systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO, under the registration number CRD42019124162.