Pierre Robin sequence (PRS) presents significant challenges in airway management and postoperative care, especially in infants undergoing cleft palate repair. The most critical task for paediatric anaesthetists is securing the airway. The presence of aero-digestive disorders makes postoperative care equally challenging, which is often underemphasised. This report describes the management of a 17-month-old male child with PRS and a partial cleft palate who aspirated postoperatively following palatoplasty. Prompt intervention with nebulised bronchodilators, oxygen therapy, and intravenous antibiotics led to significant clinical improvement. The case underscores the necessity of developing standardised guidelines for managing children post-surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate safety of omitting the intraabdominal drains after perforated peptic ulcer repairs.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial from January 2022 to January 2024 at the Emergency surgery department. Patients with perforated peptic ulcers were evaluated for eligibility. They were randomly assigned into two groups. In group A: two intraabdominal drains (pelvic and hepatorenal). in group B: no intraabdominal drains. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS), and the secondary outcomes included parameters of recovery and 30-day morbidities. The data were analyzed using SPSS 16 ®.
RESULTS: Thirty five patients were in the no drain group, while 36 patients were in the drain group. Patients in the no drains group had significantly earlier bowel motion (21.6 vs 28.69 hours; p = 0.004), fluid diet (73.54 vs 86.78 hours; p 0.001), and solid intake (84.4 vs. 98 hours; p 0.001), less pain severity (p = 0.0001) and shorter hospital stay (4.74 vs 5.75 days; p 0.001). A significant less morbidity, including surgical site infection (p = 0.01), and respiratory complications (p 0.0001), were in the no drain group. There was no difference of fever duration nor wound dehiscence.
CONCLUSIONS: Omitting the intraabdominal drains is safe after peptic ulcer perforation repair. It can improve outcomes. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06084741.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of ketorolac on opiate requirement and hospital length of stay after palatoplasty.
METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review.
METHODS: This study was completed at an urban tertiary medical center.
METHODS: Those who underwent palatoplasty with a pediatric otolaryngologist between 2010-2020.
METHODS: Incorporation of standing Ketorolac into the immediate post-operative pain regimen.
METHODS: T-test analysis was performed to determine whether initiation of ketorolac within 24 h post-palatoplasty was correlated with shorter length hospitalization or reduced opiate requirement.
RESULTS: A total of 55 pediatric subjects (49.1% female) were included in this study. Average age at time of surgery was 13 months (range 9.9-33.9 months). On two tailed t-test, use of ketorolac within the first 24 h after palatoplasty was associated with shorter length of stay (mean of 1.68 vs 2.57 days, t = 2.58, P = .01) and lower total opiate dosage during hospitalization (mean of 2.8 vs 9.16 morphine milligram equivalents, t = 3.37, P = .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing palatoplasty, there is a significant relationship between the early utilization of ketorolac and decreased length of hospitalization as well as decreased opiate requirement. This has important consequences to help improve pain control with reduced opiates requirement as well as length of stay. Future prospective studies can help elicit the causative effect of Ketorolac on these parameters and can investigate whether use of Ketorolac has an effect on long term recovery and post-discharge opiate requirements as well.

OBJECTIVE: There have been no adequate comparisons of the efficacy, safety, and efficiency of analgesia after laparoscopic colorectal resection (LAC), with and without epidural anesthesia (EDA).
METHODS: This was a multicenter prospective observational study of patients undergoing LAC. The primary end point was the mean visual analog scale (VAS) score on postoperative days (PODs) 1-7. The secondary end points were the highest VAS, complication rate, days to first ambulation and fatigue, length of hospital stay, and time to commencement of surgery.
RESULTS: We compared an EDA group (Group E, n = 48) and a no-EDA group (Group O, n = 48) after matching. The mean VAS was not significantly different between the groups (28.7 vs. 30.1, p = 0.288). On assessing the secondary end points, the highest VAS was not significantly different between the groups. In fact, the VAS was lower in Group E only on POD 2. There was no difference in the incidence of complications, the time to first postoperative evacuation was shorter in Group E, and postoperative hospitalization was similar. The time to surgery was shorter in Group O.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that LAC without EDA is a feasible option, but with the early and regular use of adjunctive measures to provide more stable analgesia.

The development of laparoscopic liver surgery, the improvement in the perioperative care programs, and the surgical innovation have allowed liver resections on selected cirrhotic patients. However, the great majority of ERAS studies for liver surgery have been conducted on patients with normal liver parenchyma, while its application on cirrhotic patients is limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of an ERAS protocol in cirrhotic patients who underwent liver surgery. We present an analytical observational prospective cohort study, which included all adult patients who underwent a liver resection between December 2017 and December 2019 with an ERAS program. We compare the outcomes in patients cirrhotic (CG)/non-cirrhotic (NCG). A total of 101 patients were included. Thirty of these (29.7%) were patients ≥ 70 cirrhotic. 87% of the both groups had performed > 70% of the ERAS. Oral diet tolerance and mobilization on the first postoperative day were similar in both groups. The hospital stay was similar in both groups (2.9 days/2.99 days). Morbidity and mortality were similar; Clavien I-II (CG: 44% vs NCG: 30%) and Clavien ≥ III (CG: 3% vs NCG: 8%). Hospital re-entry was higher in the NCG. Overall mortality of the study was 1%. ERAS protocol compliance was associated with a decrease in complications (ERAS < 70%: 80% vs ERAS > 90%: 20%; p: 0.02) and decrease in severity of complications in both study groups. The application of the ERAS program in cirrhotic patients who undergo liver surgery is feasible, safe, and reproducible. It allows postoperative complications, mortality, hospital stay, and readmission rates comparable to those in standard patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of implementing the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in patients undergoing elective hysterectomy in a network of regional hospitals, supported by an intensive audit-and-feedback (A&F) approach.
METHODS: A multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04063072).
METHODS: Gynaecological units in the Piemonte region, Italy.
METHODS: Patients undergoing elective hysterectomy, either for cancer or for benign conditions.
METHODS: Twenty-three units (clusters), stratified by surgical volume, were randomised into four sequences. At baseline (first 3 months), standard care was continued in all units. Subsequently, the four sequences implemented the ERAS protocol successively every 3 months, after specific training. By the end of the study, each unit had a period in which standard care was maintained (control) and a period in which the protocol, supported by feedback, was applied (experimental).
METHODS: Length of hospital stay (LOS), without outliers (>98th percentile).
RESULTS: Between September 2019 and May 2021, 2086 patients were included in the main analysis with an intention-to-treat approach: 1104 (53%) in the control period and 982 (47%) in the ERAS period. Compliance with the ERAS protocol increased from 60% in the control period to 76% in the experimental period, with an adjusted absolute difference of +13.3% (95% CI 11.6% to 15.0%). LOS, moving from 3.5 to 3.2 days, did not show a significant reduction (-0.12 days; 95% CI -0.30 to 0.07 days). No difference was observed in the occurrence of complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ERAS protocol for hysterectomy at the regional level, supported by an A&F approach, resulted in a substantial improvement in compliance, but without meaningful effects on LOS and complications. This study confirms the effectiveness of A&F in promoting important innovations in an entire hospital network and suggests the need of a higher compliance with the ERAS protocol to obtain valuable improvements in clinical outcomes.

Regional anesthesia in postoperative pain management has developed in recent years, especially with the advent of fascial plane blocks. This study aims to compare the ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane block (ESPB) versus the ultrasound-guided bilateral transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) on postoperative analgesia after laparoscopic or robotic urologic surgery. This was a prospective observational study; 97 patients (ESPB-group) received bilateral ultrasound-guided ESPB with 20 mL of ropivacaine 0.375% plus 0.5 mcg/kg of dexmedetomidine in each side at the level of T7-T9 and 93 patients (TAPB-group) received bilateral ultrasound-guided TAPB with 20 mL ropivacaine 0.375% or 0.25%. The primary outcome was the postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score, which was significantly lower in the ESPB group on postoperative days 0, 1, 2, and 3 (p < 0.001) and, consequently, the number of patients requiring postoperative supplemental analgesic rescue therapies was significantly lower (p < 0.001). Concerning the secondary outcomes, consumption of ropivacaine was significantly lower in the group (p < 0.001) and the total amount of analgesic rescue doses was significantly lower in the ESPB-group than the TAPB-group in postoperative days from 2 to 4 (1 vs. 3, p > 0.001). Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was higher in the TAPB group and no block-related complications were observed. Our data indicate that ESPB provides postoperative pain control at least as good as TAPB plus morphine, with less local anesthetic needed.

The development of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has brought about substantial transformations in perioperative care, substituting conventional methods with a patient-centric, evidence-based strategy. ERAS protocol adopts a holistic approach to patient care, which includes all stages preceding, during, and following the operation. These programs prioritize patient-specific therapies that are tailored to their specific requirements. Nutritional assessment and enhancement, patient education, minimally invasive procedures, and multimodal pain management are all fundamental components of ERAS. ERAS provides a multitude of advantages, including diminished postoperative complications, abbreviated hospital stays, heightened patient satisfaction, and healthcare cost reductions. This article examines the foundational tenets of ERAS, their incorporation into the field of general surgery, their suitability for diverse surgical specialties, the obstacles faced during implementation, and possible directions for further investigation, such as the integration of digital health technologies, personalized patient care, and the long-term viability of ERAS protocols.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are patient-centered, evidence-based guidelines for peri-, intra-, and postoperative management of surgical candidates that aim to decrease operative complications and facilitate recovery after surgery. Anesthesia providers can use these protocols to guide decision-making and standardize aspects of their anesthetic plan in the operating room.
OBJECTIVE: Research across multiple disciplines has demonstrated that clinical decision support systems have the potential to improve protocol adherence by reminding providers about departmental policies and protocols via notifications. There remains a gap in the literature about whether clinical decision support systems can improve patient outcomes by improving anesthesia providers\' adherence to protocols. Our hypothesis is that the implementation of an electronic notification system to anesthesia providers the day prior to scheduled breast surgeries will increase the use of the already existing but underused ERAS protocols.
METHODS: This was a single-center prospective cohort study conducted between October 2017 and August 2018 at an urban academic medical center. After obtaining approval from the institutional review board, anesthesia providers assigned to major breast surgery cases were identified. Patient data were collected pre- and postimplementation of an electronic notification system that sent the anesthesia providers an email reminder of the ERAS breast protocol the night before scheduled surgeries. Each patient\'s record was then reviewed to assess the frequency of adherence to the various ERAS protocol elements.
RESULTS: Implementation of an electronic notification significantly improved overall protocol adherence and several preoperative markers of ERAS protocol adherence. Protocol adherence increased from 16% (n=14) to 44% (n=44; P<.001), preoperative administration of oral gabapentin (600 mg) increased from 13% (n=11) to 43% (n=43; P<.001), and oral celebrex (400 mg) use increased from 16% (n=14) to 35% (n=35; P=.006). There were no statistically significant differences in the use of scopolamine transdermal patch (P=.05), ketamine (P=.35), and oral acetaminophen (P=.31) between the groups. Secondary outcomes such as intraoperative and postoperative morphine equivalent administered, postanesthesia care unit length of stay, postoperative pain scores, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting did not show statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: This study examines whether sending automated notifications to anesthesia providers increases the use of ERAS protocols in a single academic medical center. Our analysis exhibited statistically significant increases in overall protocol adherence but failed to show significant differences in secondary outcome measures. Despite the lack of a statistically significant difference in secondary postoperative outcomes, our analysis contributes to the limited literature on the relationship between using push notifications and clinical decision support in guiding perioperative decision-making. A variety of techniques can be implemented, including technological solutions such as automated notifications to providers, to improve awareness and adherence to ERAS protocols.

UNASSIGNED: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a strategy used to improve perioperative outcomes and reduce complications. However, data on the efficacy of ERAS in thoracic surgery in developing countries are limited. The current study aimed to validate the benefits of ERAS among patients at a single institution.
UNASSIGNED: This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent pulmonary resection at Vajira Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, between 2016 and 2020. To compare outcomes, patients were divided into the pre-ERAS group (2016-2018) and the post-ERAS group (2019-2020) using propensity score matching (1:2) with the year 2019 as the cutoff for introducing ERAS protocols at our institution.
UNASSIGNED: In total, 321 patients were included in the analysis (pre-ERAS group, n = 74; post-ERAS group, n = 247). After propensity score matching, 56 and 112 patients were classified under the pre- and post-ERAS groups, respectively. The post-ERAS group had significantly lower pain scores than the pre-ERAS group on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3, and a lower volume of intraoperative blood loss. In the multivariable analysis, the post-ERAS group had a shorter chest tube duration (mean difference = -1.62 days, 95% confidence interval = -2.65 to -0.31) and length of hospital stay (mean difference = -2.40 days, 95% confidence interval = -4.45 to -0.65) than the pre-ERAS group.
UNASSIGNED: The use of ERAS guidelines in pulmonary resection is beneficial. Although no significant differences were observed in postoperative complication rate, intensive care unit stay, and additional cost burden between the two groups, patients in the post-ERAS group had a shorter postoperative chest tube duration, shorter hospital stays, shorter operative time, lower postoperative pain score, and lower volume of intraoperative blood loss.