Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury

Background: Neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe. Methods: A survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP). Results: The survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30 min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25 mmHg, 18% 30 mmHg, and 17% 20 mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions. Conclusion: Despite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care

General vs. neuraxial anaesthesia in hip fracture patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Hip fracture is a trauma of the elderly. The worldwide number of patients in need of surgery after hip fracture will increase in the coming years. The 30-day mortality ranges between 4 and 14%. Patients’ outcome may be improved by anaesthesia technique (general vs. neuraxial anaesthesia). There is a dearth of evidence from randomised studies regarding to the optimal anaesthesia technique. However, several large non-randomised studies addressing this question have been published from the onset of 2010. Methods To compare the 30-day mortality rate, in-hospital mortality rate and length of hospital stay after neuraxial (epidural/spinal) or general anaesthesia in hip fracture patients (≥ 18 years old) we prepared a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search for appropriate retrospective observational and prospective randomised studies in Embase and PubMed databases was performed in the time-period from 01.01.2010 to 21.11.2016. Additionally a forward searching in google scholar, a level one reference list searching and a formal searching of trial registries was performed. Results Twenty retrospective observational and three prospective randomised controlled studies were included. There was no difference in the 30-day mortality [OR 0.99; 95% CI (0.94 to 1.04), p = 0.60] between the general and the neuraxial anaesthesia group. The in-hospital mortality [OR 0.85; 95% CI (0.76 to 0.95), p = 0.004] and the length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the neuraxial anaesthesia group [MD -0.26; 95% CI (−0.36 to −0.17); p < 0.00001]. Conclusion Neuraxial anaesthesia is associated with a reduced in-hospital mortality and length of hospitalisation. However, type of anaesthesia did not influence the 30-day mortality. In future there is a need for large randomised studies to examine the association between the type of anaesthesia, post-operative complications and mortality

Warm and humidified insufflation gas during gynecologic laparoscopic surgery reduces postoperative pain in predisposed patients—a randomized, controlled multi-arm trial

Background!#!Postoperative pain remains a common problem in gynecologic laparoscopy, especially in head zone-related regions, triggered by intra-abdominal pressure during capnoperitoneum. Humidified and prewarmed insufflation gas may ameliorate pain and be beneficial.!##!Methods!#!This prospective randomized controlled parallel group multi-arm single-center study investigated the effects of temperature and humidity of insufflation gas on postoperative pain during gynecologic laparoscopy with a duration ≥ 60 min. Female participants (18-70 years) were blinded and randomly assigned-computer generated-to either insufflation with dry cold CO!##!Results!#!150 participants were randomized. Compared to group 'AIR' (n = 48), there was significantly less pain in group 'HUMI +' (n = 48) in the recovery room (- 1.068; 95% CI - 2.08 to - 0.061), as well as significantly less ibuprofen use at day two (- 0.5871 g ± 0.258; p-value = 0.0471). Other variables did not change significantly. Stratification for presence of endometriosis or non-previous abdominal surgery in patient history revealed significantly less pain in both groups 'HUMI' (n = 50) and 'HUMI +' versus group 'AIR.' Related side effects were not noted.!##!Conclusion!#!In the overall population, the use of warm, humidified insufflation gas did not yield clinically relevant effects; however, in predisposed patients with endometriosis and who could otherwise expect high pain levels, warm and humidified gas may be beneficial

Traumatic brain injury : integrated approaches to improve prevention, clinical care, and research

Rahul Raj on työryhmän InTBIR Participants Investigators jäsen.Peer reviewe

Improve hip fracture outcome in the elderly patient (iHOPE): a study protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of spinal versus general anaesthesia

Introduction Hip fracture surgery is associated with high in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates and serious adverse patient outcomes. Evidence from randomised controlled trials regarding effectiveness of spinal versus general anaesthesia on patient-centred outcomes after hip fracture surgery is sparse. Methods and analysis The iHOPE study is a pragmatic national, multicentre, randomised controlled, open-label clinical trial with a two-arm parallel group design. In total, 1032 patients with hip fracture (>65 years) will be randomised in an intended 1: 1 allocation ratio to receive spinal anaesthesia (n=516) or general anaesthesia (n=516). Outcome assessment will occur in a blinded manner after hospital discharge and inhospital. The primary endpoint will be assessed by telephone interview and comprises the time to the first occurring event of the binary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or new-onset serious cardiac and pulmonary complications within 30 postoperative days. In-hospital secondary endpoints, assessed via in-person interviews and medical record review, include mortality, perioperative adverse events, delirium, satisfaction, walking independently, length of hospital stay and discharge destination. Telephone interviews will be performed for long-term endpoints (all-cause mortality, independence in walking, chronic pain, ability to return home cognitive function and overall health and disability) at postoperative day 30 +/- 3, 180 +/- 45 and 365 +/- 60. Ethics and dissemination iHOPE has been approved by the leading Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the RWTH Aachen University on 14 March 2018 (EK 022/18). Approval from all other involved local Ethical Committees was subsequently requested and obtained. Study started in April 2018 with a total recruitment period of 24 months. iHOPE will be disseminated via presentations at national and international scientific meetings or conferences and publication in peer-reviewed international scientific journals