Effect of individual patient risk, centre, surgeon and anaesthetist on length of stay in hospital after cardiac surgery: Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia and Critical Care (ACTACC) consecutive cases series study of 10 UK specialist centres.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the relative contributions of patient risk profile, local and individual clinical practice on length of hospital stay after cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Ten-year audit of prospectively collected consecutive cardiac surgical cases. Case-mix adjusted outcomes were analysed in models that included random effects for centre, surgeon and anaesthetist. SETTING: UK centres providing adult cardiac surgery. PARTICIPANTS: 10 of 36 UK specialist centres agreed to provide outcomes for all major cardiac operations over 10 years. After exclusions (duplicates, cases operated by more than one consultant, deaths and procedures for which the EuroSCORE risk score for cardiac surgery is not appropriate), there were 107 038 cardiac surgical procedures between April 2002 and March 2012, conducted by 127 consultant surgeons and 190 consultant anaesthetists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Length of stay (LOS) up to 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The principal component of variation in outcomes was patient risk (represented by the EuroSCORE and remaining patient heterogeneity), accounting for 95.43% of the variation for postoperative LOS. The impact of the surgeon and centre was moderate (intra-class correlation coefficients ICC=2.79% and 1.59%, respectively), whereas the impact of the anaesthetist was negligible (ICC=0.19%). Similarly, 96.05% of the variation for prolonged LOS (>11 days) was attributable to the patient, with surgeon and centre less but still influential components (ICC=2.12% and 1.66%, respectively, 0.17% only for anaesthetists). Adjustment for year of operation resulted in minor reductions in variation attributable to surgeons (ICC=2.52% for LOS and 2.23% for prolonged LOS). CONCLUSIONS: Patient risk profile is the primary determinant of variation in LOS, and as a result, current initiatives to reduce hospital stay by modifying consultant performance are unlikely to have a substantial impact. Therefore, substantially reducing hospital stay requires shifting away from a one-size-fits-all approach to cardiac surgery, and seeking alternative treatment options personalised to high-risk patients

EVALUATING THE THERAPEUTIC POTENTIAL OF PRP THERAPY IN KNEE JOINT PAIN MANAGEMENT: A LARGE-SCALE STUDY

Background: Degenerative conditions are the primary causes of chronic knee joint pain and pose a major challenge for long-term management. Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) therapy, based on autologous growth factors, has attracted attention as an alternative to conventional treatments.Methods: This is a randomized controlled trial where the efficacy and safety of PRP therapy in 1,000 patients suffering from knee joint pain were assessed over a follow-up period of four to five years. Patients were divided into two groups: PRP and placebo (saline), with treatments administered at the initial visit and at one and two months.Results: The VAS and WOMAC score of the PRP group showed significant and sustained improvements over the placebo group, and the results were obvious to last longer. Even though minor adverse events like pain and swelling at the injection site were found to occur more in the PRP group, they have been manageable.Conclusion: With a long period, PRP therapy proved to be effective for reducing the pain and improving the functionality of the joints offering an upward, long-term benefit for chronic knee pain management. Strong results from the study support the wide clinical application of PRP, which can significantly enhance the quality of life in patients

Pain management after elective craniotomy: A systematic review with procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) recommendations.

BACKGROUND Pain after craniotomy can be intense and its management is often suboptimal. OBJECTIVES We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after craniotomy. DESIGN A systematic review using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. DATA SOURCES Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in English from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2021 assessing pain after craniotomy using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Each randomised controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review was critically evaluated and included only if met the PROSPECT requirements. Included studies were evaluated for clinically relevant differences in pain scores, use of nonopioid analgesics, such as paracetamol and NSAIDs, and current clinical relevance. RESULTS Out of 126 eligible studies identified, 53 RCTs and seven systematic review or meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion, regional analgesia techniques, including incision-site infiltration, scalp nerve block and acupuncture. Limited evidence was found for flupirtine, intra-operative magnesium sulphate infusion, intra-operative lidocaine infusion, infiltration adjuvants (hyaluronidase, dexamethasone and α-adrenergic agonist added to local anaesthetic solution). No evidence was found for metamizole, postoperative subcutaneous sumatriptan, pre-operative oral vitamin D, bilateral maxillary block or superficial cervical plexus block. CONCLUSIONS The analgesic regimen for craniotomy should include paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion and a regional analgesic technique (either incision-site infiltration or scalp nerve block), with opioids as rescue analgesics. Further RCTs are required to confirm the influence of the recommended analgesic regimen on postoperative pain relief

Establishing a South African national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation

Background. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical operations have been drastically reduced in South Africa (SA). Guidelines on surgical prioritisation during COVID-19 have been published, but are specific to high-income countries. There is a pressing need for context-specific guidelines and a validated tool for prioritising surgical cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, the South African National Surgical Obstetric Anaesthesia Plan Task Team was asked by the National Department of Health to establish a national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation.Objectives. To develop a national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation, including a set of recommendations and a risk calculatorfor operative care.Methods. The surgical prioritisation framework was developed in three stages: (i) a literature review of international, national and local recommendations on COVID-19 and surgical care was conducted; (ii) a set of recommendations was drawn up based on the available literature and through consensus of the COVID-19 Task Team; and (iii) a COVID-19 surgical risk calculator was developed and evaluated.Results. A total of 30 documents were identified from which recommendations around prioritisation of surgical care were used to draw up six recommendations for preoperative COVID-19 screening and testing as well as the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. Ninety-nine perioperative practitioners from eight SA provinces evaluated the COVID-19 surgical risk calculator, which had high acceptability and a high level of concordance (81%) with current clinical practice.Conclusions. This national framework on COVID-19 surgical prioritisation can help hospital teams make ethical, equitable and personalised decisions whether to proceed with or delay surgical operations during this unprecedented epidemic

Does the "Weekend Effect" for Postoperative Mortality Stand Up to Scrutiny? Association for Cardiothoracic Anesthesia and Critical Care Cohort Study of 110,728 Cardiac Surgical Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Ongoing debate focuses on whether patients admitted to the hospital on weekends have higher mortality than those admitted on weekdays. Whether this apparent "weekend effect" reflects differing patient risk, care quality differences, or inadequate adjustment for risk during analysis remains unclear. This study aimed to examine the existence of a "weekend effect" for risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality after cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected cardiac registry data. SETTING: Ten UK specialist cardiac centers. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 110,728 cases, undertaken by 127 consultant surgeons and 190 consultant anesthetists between April 2002 and March 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Major risk-stratified cardiac surgical operations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Crude in-hospital mortality rate was 3.1%. Multilevel multivariable models were employed to estimate the effect of operative day on in-hospital mortality, adjusting for center, surgeon, anesthetist, patient risk, and procedure priority. Weekend elective cases had significantly lower mortality risk compared to Monday elective cases (odds ratio [OR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42, 0.96) following risk adjustment by the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) and procedure priority; differences between weekend and Monday for urgent and emergency/salvage cases were not significant (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.73, 1.72, and 1.07, 95% CI 0.79, 1.45 respectively). Considering only the logistic EuroSCORE but not procedure priority yielded 29% higher odds of death for weekend cases compared to Monday operations (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08, 1.54). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that undergoing cardiac surgery during the weekend does not affect negatively patient survival, and highlights the importance of comprehensive risk adjustment to avoid detecting spurious "weekend effects.

Airway management in neonates and infants: European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and British Journal of Anaesthesia joint guidelines.

Airway management is required during general anaesthesia and is essential for life-threatening conditions such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Evidence from recent trials indicates a high incidence of critical events during airway management, especially in neonates or infants. It is important to define the optimal techniques and strategies for airway management in these groups. In this joint European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) and British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) guideline on airway management in neonates and infants, we present aggregated and evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians in providing safe and effective medical care. We identified seven main areas of interest for airway management: i) preoperative assessment and preparation; ii) medications; iii) techniques and algorithms; iv) identification and treatment of difficult airways; v) confirmation of tracheal intubation; vi) tracheal extubation, and vii) human factors. Based on these areas, Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) questions were derived that guided a structured literature search. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to formulate the recommendations based on those studies included with consideration of their methodological quality (strong '1' or weak '2' recommendation with high 'A', medium 'B' or low 'C' quality of evidence). In summary, we recommend: 1. Use medical history and physical examination to predict difficult airway management (1С). 2. Ensure adequate level of sedation or general anaesthesia during airway management (1B). 3. Administer neuromuscular blocker before tracheal intubation when spontaneous breathing is not necessary (1С). 4. Use a videolaryngoscope with an age-adapted standard blade as first choice for tracheal intubation (1B). 5. Apply apnoeic oxygenation during tracheal intubation in neonates (1B). 6. Consider a supraglottic airway for rescue oxygenation and ventilation when tracheal intubation fails (1B). 7. Limit the number of tracheal intubation attempts (1C). 8. Use a stylet to reinforce and preshape tracheal tubes when hyperangulated videolaryngoscope blades are used and when the larynx is anatomically anterior (1C). 9. Verify intubation is successful with clinical assessment and end-tidal CO2 waveform (1C). 10. Apply high-flow nasal oxygenation, continuous positive airway pressure or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for postextubation respiratory support, when appropriate (1B)

Disseminating technology in global surgery.

BACKGROUND:Effective dissemination of technology in global surgery is vital to realize universal health coverage by 2030. Challenges include a lack of human resource, infrastructure and finance. Understanding these challenges, and exploring opportunities and solutions to overcome them, are essential to improve global surgical care. METHODS:This review focuses on technologies and medical devices aimed at improving surgical care and training in low- and middle-income countries. The key considerations in the development of new technologies are described, along with strategies for evaluation and wider dissemination. Notable examples of where the dissemination of a new surgical technology has achieved impact are included. RESULTS:Employing the principles of frugal and responsible innovation, and aligning evaluation and development to high scientific standards help overcome some of the challenges in disseminating technology in global surgery. Exemplars of effective dissemination include low-cost laparoscopes, gasless laparoscopic techniques and innovative training programmes for laparoscopic surgery; low-cost and versatile external fixation devices for fractures; the LifeBox pulse oximeter project; and the use of immersive technologies in simulation, training and surgical care delivery. CONCLUSION:Core strategies to facilitate technology dissemination in global surgery include leveraging international funding, interdisciplinary collaboration involving all key stakeholders, and frugal scientific design, development and evaluation