The potential applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in anaesthesia are expansive.~However, like any technological advancement, the integration of AI in anaesthetic practice comes with both benefits and potential risks. This article seeks to set out some of the advantages and disadvantages of the use of AI technologies within the field of anaesthesia. Benefits of the application of AI in anaesthesia include an improvement in perioperative risk stratification, personalisation of anaesthetic plans, improvement in efficiency and ultimately reduce healthcare costs. However, reliance on technology may reduce clinical acumen but furthermore there are issues surrounding data quality, privacy as well as legal and ethical concerns, which require further evaluation. Whilst AI within anaesthetic practice holds immense promise, there are substantial challenges which require careful consideration and ongoing evaluation. A collaborative approach will be required from healthcare staff, developers and regulators to promote the safe, responsible, and effective application of AI in anaesthesia practice.

Of the total carbon footprint of Australia, 7% is attributed to healthcare. In the UK, inhalational agents make up 5% of the healthcare carbon footprint. This systematic review aims to determine which methods of education about the environmental impact of inhalational anaesthetic agents can be utilised to promote behaviour change, reducing the anaesthetic-related carbon footprint. This systematic review sourced records from CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, JBI and MEDLINE from 1970 to March 2022. The search identified 589 records, 13 of which met eligibility criteria after the screening process, in which 10 of these records were conference abstracts. Education curricula focused on inhalational agent choice (69%), lowering the fresh gas flow during maintenance anaesthesia (69%), encouraging alternatives such as total intravenous anaesthesia (23%) and/or switching off the gas on transfer (8%). The most common teaching techniques utilised in education curricula were didactic lectures (85%), visual prompts (54%), emails (46%), and conversation forums (31%). All but one study reported a positive relationship between teaching sessions and behavioural change resulting in lower inhalational anaesthetic use by participants and their organisations, reducing healthcare-associated emissions. This systematic review has demonstrated that single education sessions as well as multi-focused, multimodal education curricula on the topic of greener anaesthesia can be beneficial in promoting behavioural change.

UNASSIGNED: Difficult airway management is one of the main challenges in paediatric anaesthesia, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study was to investigate the main predictors of difficult paediatric intubation.
UNASSIGNED: In this observational study, we included all children aged less than five years undergoing intra-abdominal surgery with endotracheal intubation. Patients were divided into two groups according to the incidence of difficult intubation. Then, we investigated predictors for difficult paediatric intubation.
UNASSIGNED: We included 217 children, and difficult intubation was observed in 10% of them. Predictors were as follows: Mallampati III-IV class (adjusted odds ratio = 2.21; 95% confidence interval = 1.1-6.4), limited mouth opening (adjusted odds ratio = 2.4; 95% confidence interval = 1.8-3.5), facial dysmorphia (adjusted odds ratio = 2.6; 95% confidence interval = 1.32-7.4) and anaesthesia without muscle relaxant (adjusted odds ratio = 1.8; 95% confidence interval = 1.0-5.1) or without opioids during crash inductions (adjusted odds ratio = 1.7; 95% confidence interval = 1.01-4.8).
UNASSIGNED: Facial dysmorphia and limited mouth opening were predictors of difficult intubation in children. Furthermore, it seems that Mallampati class and anaesthesia technique may also predict challenging intubation, which may guide us to change our perioperative practice.

暂无摘要。

Background The financial burden of running the National Health Service (NHS) is high. Staff members should be aware of the cost of the equipment they use to enable efficient use of resources, reduce waste, and control spending. However, limited financial education at undergraduate and junior stages has contributed to relatively poor knowledge among healthcare workers at all levels. Anaesthetics is a speciality which uses a large amount of equipment; therefore, we aim to assess the cost awareness among staff for commonly used consumables. Furthermore, we aim to assess staff members\' attitudes towards the financial and environmental impact of the equipment they use and whether this would change their practice. Methodology An electronic survey was sent to staff members from the anaesthetic department of the Medway NHS Foundation Trust during a one-month period. Respondents were asked to estimate the cost of 19 commonly used anaesthetic consumables, with an estimate categorised as correct if it was within 20% of the actual cost. At the end of the survey, there were five questions for respondents to answer regarding the financial and environmental impact of their current healthcare practice and possible alternatives. Results There were 69 respondents within the anaesthetic department from a variety of roles. Overall, only 9.37% of items were estimated correctly, with cheaper items commonly being overestimated and more expensive items being underestimated. Overall, 60% of respondents said the cost of an item would influence their use. The overwhelming majority claimed that the environmental impact was a concern, and most would favour recyclable/reusable alternatives. Conclusions Cost awareness among anaesthetic staff for commonly used equipment is poor. More education and training are necessary in this area as limited knowledge of service costs restricts the ability to make cost-efficient choices which are needed in the current NHS.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: The administration of local anaesthesia in intraperitoneal space as part of the multi-modal analgesic regimen has shown to be effective in reducing postoperative pain. Recent studies demonstrated that intraperitoneal lidocaine may provide analgesic effects. Primary objective was to determine the impact of intraperitoneal lidocaine on postoperative pain scores at rest.
METHODS: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
METHODS: Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from their inception date until May 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing intraperitoneal lidocaine and placebo in adults undergoing surgery were included.
RESULTS: Our systematic review included 24 RCTs (n = 1,824). The intraperitoneal lidocaine group was significantly associated with lower postoperative pain scores at rest (MD: -0.87, 95% CI: -1.04 to -0.69) and at movement (MD: -0.50, 95% Cl: -0.93 to -0.08) among adult patients after surgery. Its administration also significantly decreased morphine consumption (MD: -6.42 mg, 95% Cl: -11.56 to -1.27), lowered the incidence of needing analgesia (OR: 0.22, 95% Cl: 0.14 to 0.35). Intraperitoneal lidocaine statistically reduced time to resume regular diet (MD: 0.16 days; 95% Cl: -0.31 to -0.01), and lowered postoperative incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR: 0.54, 95% Cl: 0.39 to 0.75).
CONCLUSIONS: In this review, our findings should be interpreted with caution. Future studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose of administering intraperitoneal lidocaine among adult patients undergoing surgery.

BACKGROUND: Multiple punctures during peripheral venous catheter (PVC) placement increase the risk of complications. Scoring for adult difficult intravenous access (A-DIVA Scale) exists but has never been assessed in the framework of a care algorithm (scoring associated with a new decision-making tree for puncture conditions, the A-DIVA Tree). We seek to implement an catheter placement algorithm to decrease the mean number of punctures per patient. The algorithm will be adjusted based on obstacles and levers revealed by the analysis of clinical data. The benefits of the algorithm will be assessed using a step-by-step implementation of the approach.
METHODS: 794 PVC placements will be recorded in two inclusion centres (50%/50%). In phase I, 297 PVC placements will be collected, and 16 individual semistructured interviews will be conducted to evaluate the centres\' practices. In phase II, 200 PVC placements will be recorded to assess the impact of the A-DIVA Scale alone. The interphase will allow preliminary results based development of the A-DIVA Tree. In phase III, 297 PVC placements will be recorded to assess the impact of the algorithm on the mean number of punctures per patient.
BACKGROUND: The study and related consent forms were approved by an institutional review board (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud-Méditerranée I) on 25 April 2023 under reference number 2023-A00223-42. The results will be disseminated in the form of original articles, presentations and guidelines.
BACKGROUND: NCT05935228.

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.