BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum blocks are commonly used for postoperative analgesia during caesarean section. Ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum blocks can be performed through four approaches, including lateral, posterior, anterior, and intramuscular quadratus lumborum blocks. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the optimal approach to ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum blocks for postoperative analgesia in elective caesarean section.
METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases will be systematically searched from their inception to 30 July 2024. Randomised controlled trials that compared the analgesic effects of different ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block approaches in elective caesarean section will be included. Only publications in English will be eligible for inclusion. The total postoperative analgesic consumption over 24 hours will be the primary outcome. The time to first analgesic request, postoperative pain scores at rest and during movement, and incidence of adverse effects will be secondary outcomes. RevMan V.5.4 will be used for the statistical analysis. Network meta-analysis will be used for indirect comparisons between different approaches across studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.
BACKGROUND: Ethical approval was not required. The results of this study will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42024503694.

BACKGROUND: Femoral nerve block (FNB) is a prevalent method used for postoperative pain management after knee surgery; however, it decreases the strength of the quadriceps muscle and is not conducive to early recovery after surgery. Pectineus muscle plane (PMP) block involves the injection of a local anaesthetic into the fascial plane below the pectineus muscle, where it blocks the obturator and saphenous nerves. However, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of PMP block for analgesia after knee surgery. The aim of this trial is to assess whether PMP block can improve postoperative analgesia, promote early recovery and reduce the length of hospital stay.
METHODS: In this randomised controlled study, 46 patients will be randomly allocated into two groups: the PMP block group (n=23) and the FNB group (n=23). The primary outcome measures will include Visual Analog Scale scores for pain at rest and during movement at various time points following knee surgery. Secondary outcomes will include the degree of active flexion, straight leg raise test performance, get-out-of-bed test result, 20 m walk test result, total dose administered via patient-controlled analgesia infusion pumps, hospital stay duration, patient satisfaction and postoperative complications, such as pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.This study protocol adheres to rigorous standards for ethical conduct and patient safety. The findings from this trial are expected to contribute valuable insights to the optimisation of postoperative pain management strategies and the improvement of early recovery outcomes for patients who undergo knee surgery.
BACKGROUND: This trial has been approved by the ethics committee of Zhejiang Hospital (2022(128K)) on 17 November 2022, and inpatients who meet the inclusion criteria and diagnostic requirements are eligible for this study. Any subsequent protocol and informed consent document amendments must be approved by the responsible ethics committee. All communications with the regulatory authorities and the ethics committee must be recorded. All recruited patients will be informed of the trial purposes and their duties within the trial before randomisation. Recruited patients can withdraw from the study at any time without providing any specific reason. The patient data will be stored in a separate, safe place, but that it may be reviewed by the relevant investigator. The results will be published in international peer-reviewed medical journals.
BACKGROUND: http://www.chictr.org.cn, ID: ChiCTR2300076018. Registered on 21 September 2023.

BACKGROUND: Obesity patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery (LBS) are frequently encountered perioperative adverse events related to opioids-based anaesthesia (OBA) or opioids-free anaesthesia (OFA). While modified opioid-sparing anaesthesia (MOSA) has been shown to lower the occurrence of adverse events related to OBA and OFA. This study is to assess the efficacy of MOSA in enhancing the recovery quality among individuals undergoing LBS.
METHODS: A single-centre, prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial is conducted at a tertiary hospital. A total of 74 eligible participants undergoing elective LBS will be recruited and randomly allocated. Patients in the MOSA group will receive a combination of low-dose opioids, minimal dexmedetomidine, esketamine and lidocaine, while in the OBA group will receive standard general anaesthesia with opioids. Patients in both groups will receive standard perioperative care. The primary outcome is the quality of recovery-15 score assessed at 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include pain levels, anxiety and depression assessments, gastrointestinal function recovery, perioperative complication rates, opioid consumption and length of hospital stay.
BACKGROUND: Ethical approval has been provided by the Ethical Committee of Yan\'an Hospital of Kunming City (approval No. 2023-240-01). Eligible patients will provide written informed consent to the investigator. The outcomes of this trial will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
BACKGROUND: The study protocol is registered at https://www.chictr.org.cn/ on 19 December 2023. (identifier: ChiCTR2300078806). The trial was conducted using V.1.0.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) with and without low-basal infusion on postoperative hypoxaemia.
METHODS: A randomised parallel-group non-inferiority trial.
METHODS: The trial was conducted at a grade-A tertiary hospital from December 2021 to August 2022.
METHODS: 160 adults undergoing gastrointestinal tumour surgery and receiving postoperative PCIA.
METHODS: Participants randomly received a low-basal (0.1 mg/hour of hydromorphone) or no-basal infusion PCIA for postoperative 48 hours.
METHODS: Primary outcome was area under curve (AUC) per hour for hypoxaemia, defined as pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2) <95%. Secondary outcomes included: AUC per hour at SpO2<90% and <85%, hydromorphone consumption, ambulation time and analgesic outcomes up to 48 hours after surgery.
RESULTS: Among 160 randomised patients, 159 completed the trial. An intention-to-treat analysis showed that AUC per hour (SpO2<95%) was greater in the low-basal infusion group compared with the no-basal infusion group, with a median difference of 0.097 (95% CI 0.001 to 0.245). Non-inferiority (margin: ratio of means (ROM) of 1.25) was not confirmed since the ROM between the two groups was 2.146 (95% CI 2.138 to 2.155). Hydromorphone consumption was higher in the low-basal group than in the no-basal group (median: 5.2 mg versus 1.6 mg, p<0.001). Meanwhile, there were no differences in the AUC values at the other two hypoxaemia thresholds, in ambulation time, or pain scores between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Among the patients receiving hydromorphone PCIA after gastrointestinal tumour resection, low-basal infusion was inferior to no-basal infusion PCIA for postoperative hypoxaemia at SpO2<95% up to 48 hours after surgery.
BACKGROUND: ChiCTR2100054317.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is increasingly used for surgical patients requiring general anaesthesia. However, its effectiveness on patient-centred outcomes remains uncertain. Our main objective was to evaluate the patient-centred effectiveness of intraoperative dexmedetomidine for adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to October 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine with placebo, opioid, or usual care in adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. We synthesised data using a random-effects Bayesian regression framework to derive effect estimates and the probability of a clinically important effect. For continuous outcomes, we pooled instruments with similar constructs using standardised mean differences (SMDs) and converted SMDs and credible intervals (CrIs) to their original scale when appropriate. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Our primary outcome was quality of recovery after surgery. To guide interpretation on the original scale, the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) instrument was used (range 0-150 points, minimally important difference [MID] of 6 points).
RESULTS: We identified 49,069 citations, from which 44 RCTs involving 5904 participants were eligible. Intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration was associated with improvement in postoperative QoR-15 (mean difference 9, 95% CrI 4-14, n=21 RCTs, moderate certainty of evidence). We found 99% probability of any benefit and 88% probability of achieving the MID. There was a reduction in chronic pain incidence (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% CrI 0.19-0.79, n=7 RCTs, low certainty of evidence). There was also increased risk of clinically significant hypotension (OR 1.98, 95% CrI 0.84-3.92, posterior probability of harm 94%, n=8 RCTs) and clinically significant bradycardia (OR 1.74, 95% CrI 0.93-3.34, posterior probability of harm 95%, n=10 RCTs), with very low certainty of evidence for both. There was limited evidence to inform other secondary patient-centred outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo or standard of care, intraoperative dexmedetomidine likely results in meaningful improvement in the quality of recovery and chronic pain after surgery. However, it might increase clinically important bradycardia and hypotension.
UNASSIGNED: PROSPERO (CRD42023439896).

BACKGROUND: The Diamedica Draw-over Vaporiser 2 (DDV2) is the sevoflurane vaporiser used by the UK Defence Medical Services to provide deployed volatile general anaesthesia. The Defence Anaesthesia System employs the DDV2 with a turbine-driven ventilator as a \'push-over\' vaporiser, a modification from the manufacturer\'s design. We investigated sevoflurane delivery at varying minute volumes (MVs), vaporiser settings and temperatures in this configuration.
METHODS: A range of DDV2 settings (1%, 2%, 3%, 4% and induction) and MVs (2, 4, 6 and 8 L/min at 12 ventilations per minute) were tested at two ambient temperatures (20 and 30±3°C) over 30 min. A supplemental experiment, simulating anaesthesia during damage control surgery, was also completed, where he DDV2 was set to 2% with a 6 L/min MV for 90 min.
RESULTS: In both experiments, two distinct phases of sevoflurane delivery were noted, a \'wash-in phase\' followed by a \'maintenance period\'. The wash-in phase normally lasted less than 5 min. During the maintenance period at low MVs and vaporiser settings the DDV2 delivered a constant output, while at higher MVs and settings vapour output fell predictably. At 20±3°C, using DDV2 settings likely to be encountered in clinical practice, sevoflurane delivery was within 20% of that set. Higher vaporiser settings, MVs and temperatures resulted in greater variation between vaporiser setting and agent delivery. This variation is explained by the incomplete temperature compensation of the DDV2.
CONCLUSIONS: The DDV2 functions predictably at a range of settings, MVs and temperatures. Anaesthetic delivery in the defence anaesthesia configuration is like that previously described in the draw-over configuration. The equipment was found to be reliable and robust. This experimental work supports the continued use of the Defence Anaesthesia System for the delivery of and training in deployed general anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative opioids have been used for decades to reduce negative responses to nociception. However, opioids may have several, and sometimes serious, adverse effects. Cardiac surgery exposes patients to a high risk of postoperative complications, some of which are common to those caused by opioids: acute respiratory failure, postoperative cognitive dysfunction, postoperative ileus (POI) or death. An opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) strategy, based on the use of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine, may limit these adverse effects, but no randomised trials on this issue have been published in cardiac surgery.We hypothesised that OFA versus opioid-based anaesthesia (OBA) may reduce the incidence of major opioid-related complications after cardiac surgery.
METHODS: Multicentre, randomised, parallel and single-blinded clinical trial in four cardiac surgical centres in France, including 268 patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass grafting under cardiac bypass, with or without aortic valve replacement. Patients will be randomised to either a control OBA protocol using remifentanil or an OFA protocol using dexmedetomidine/lidocaine. The primary composite endpoint is the occurrence of at least one of the following: (1) postoperative cognitive disorder evaluated by the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit test, (2) POI, (3) acute respiratory distress or (4) death within the first 48 postoperative hours. Secondary endpoints are postoperative pain, morphine consumption, nausea-vomiting, shock, acute kidney injury, atrioventricular block, pneumonia and length of hospital stay.
BACKGROUND: This trial has been approved by an independent ethics committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Ouest III-Angers on 23 February 2021). Results will be submitted in international journals for peer reviewing.
BACKGROUND: NCT04940689, EudraCT 2020-002126-90.

BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an inexpensive and widely available medication that reduces blood loss and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in cardiac and orthopaedic surgeries. While the use of TXA in these surgeries is routine, its efficacy and safety in other surgeries, including oncologic surgeries, with comparable rates of transfusion are uncertain. Our primary objective is to evaluate whether a hospital-level policy implementation of routine TXA use in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery reduces RBC transfusion without increasing thrombotic risk.
METHODS: A pragmatic, registry-based, blinded, cluster-crossover randomised controlled trial at 10 Canadian sites, enrolling patients undergoing non-cardiac surgeries at high risk for RBC transfusion. Sites are randomised in 4-week intervals to a hospital policy of intraoperative TXA or matching placebo. TXA is administered as 1 g at skin incision, followed by an additional 1 g prior to skin closure. Coprimary outcomes are (1) effectiveness, evaluated as the proportion of patients transfused RBCs during hospital admission and (2) safety, evaluated as the proportion of patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism within 90 days. Secondary outcomes include: (1) transfusion: number of RBC units transfused (both at a hospital and patient level); (2) safety: in-hospital diagnoses of myocardial infarction, stroke, deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism; (3) clinical: hospital length of stay, intensive care unit admission, hospital survival, 90-day survival and the number of days alive and out of hospital to day 30; and (4) compliance: the proportion of enrolled patients who receive a minimum of one dose of the study intervention.
BACKGROUND: Institutional research ethics board approval has been obtained at all sites. At the completion of the trial, a plain language summary of the results will be posted on the trial website and distributed in the lay press. Our trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
BACKGROUND: NCT04803747.

BACKGROUND: Late-life treatment-resistant depression (LL-TRD) is common and increases risk for accelerated ageing and cognitive decline. Impaired sleep is common in LL-TRD and is a risk factor for cognitive decline. Slow wave sleep (SWS) has been implicated in key processes including synaptic plasticity and memory. A deficiency in SWS may be a core component of depression pathophysiology. The anaesthetic propofol can induce electroencephalographic (EEG) slow waves that resemble SWS. Propofol may enhance SWS and oral antidepressant therapy, but relationships are unclear. We hypothesise that propofol infusions will enhance SWS and improve depression in older adults with LL-TRD. This hypothesis has been supported by a recent small case series.
METHODS: SWIPED (Slow Wave Induction by Propofol to Eliminate Depression) phase I is an ongoing open-label, single-arm trial that assesses the safety and feasibility of using propofol to enhance SWS in older adults with LL-TRD. The study is enrolling 15 English-speaking adults over age 60 with LL-TRD. Participants will receive two propofol infusions 2-6 days apart. Propofol infusions are individually titrated to maximise the expression of EEG slow waves. Preinfusion and postinfusion sleep architecture are evaluated through at-home overnight EEG recordings acquired using a wireless headband equipped with dry electrodes. Sleep EEG recordings are scored manually. Key EEG measures include sleep slow wave activity, SWS duration and delta sleep ratio. Longitudinal changes in depression, suicidality and anhedonia are assessed. Assessments are performed prior to the first infusion and up to 10 weeks after the second infusion. Cognitive ability is assessed at enrolment and approximately 3 weeks after the second infusion.
BACKGROUND: The study was approved by the Washington University Human Research Protection Office. Recruitment began in November 2022. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, peer-reviewed publications and mass media. Positive results will lead to a larger phase II randomised placebo-controlled trial.
BACKGROUND: NCT04680910.

BACKGROUND: Extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and extended pleurectomy/decortication (ePD) are surgical cytoreductive techniques aimed at achieving macroscopic resection in malignant pleural tumours such as pleural mesothelioma, non-mesothelioma pleural malignancies such as thymoma and sarcoma, and rarely for pleural tuberculosis, in a more limited fashion. Despite extensive studies on both surgical techniques and consequences, a significant knowledge gap remains regarding how best to approach the perioperative anaesthesia challenges for EPP and ePD.It is unknown if the risk stratification processes for such surgeries are standardised or what types of functional and dynamic cardiac and pulmonary tests are employed preoperatively to assist in the perioperative risk stratification. Further, it is unknown whether the types of anaesthesia and analgesia techniques employed, and the types of haemodynamic monitoring tools used, impact on outcomes. It is also unknown whether individualised haemodynamic protocols are used to guide the rational use of fluids, vasoactive drugs and inotropes.Finally, there is a dearth of evidence regarding how best to monitor these patients postoperatively or what the most effective enhanced recovery protocols are to best mitigate postoperative complications and accelerate hospital discharge. To increase our knowledge of the perioperative and anaesthetic treatment for patients undergoing EPP/ePD, this scoping review attempts to synthesise the literature and identify these knowledge gaps.
METHODS: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Review Protocols methodology. Electronic databases, OVID Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, will be systematically searched for relevant literature corresponding to EPP or ePD and perioperative or anaesthetic management. Data will be analysed and summarised descriptively and organised according to the three perioperative stages: preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative factors in clinical care.
BACKGROUND: Ethics approval was not required. The findings will be disseminated through professional networks, conference presentations and publications in scientific journals.