Ketorolac plus Lidocaine vs Lidocaine for pain relief following core needle soft tissue biopsy: A CONSORT-compliant double-blind randomized controlled study

Backgrounds:The main objective of this study was to compare the pain control efficacy of local administration of Lidocaine with or without the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, Ketorolac, and local conventional Lidocaine injection in core needle biopsy of the musculoskeletal tumor.Methods:The current study was a randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial that included 128 patients with suspected musculoskeletal tumors. Patients were randomly assigned to either the Ketorolac plus Lidocaine (n = 64) or Lidocaine group (n = 64). The Ketorolac – Lidocaine combination syringe contained 30 mg Ketorolac and 2% Lidocaine – adrenaline dosage, and the Lidocaine syringe contained 2% Lidocaine – adrenaline dosage. The level of pain after core needle biopsy was evaluated for each patient at 1, 6, 12, 24, 48, and >48 hours by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The mean VAS changes over time were compared between the Ketorolac plus Lidocaine and Lidocaine groups using a linear mixed model.Results:baseline information including mean age of patients in Lidocaine group (51.5 ± 19.4 years) and in Lidocaine – Ketorolac combination group (50.1 ± 18 years), diagnosis (malignant, benign, metastatic, infection), tumor location (upper and lower extremities, back), VAS score 1-hour post-operation (mild and moderate pain) were noted. The VAS score ratings were significantly lower in Lidocaine – Ketorolac combination group when compared to the Lidocaine group during the 1 to 24 hours post-operation time period.Conclusion:Patients receiving Lidocaine – Ketorolac combination dosage had significantly lower VAS scores, and these results confirm that local injection of Lidocaine – Ketorolac combination had a superior pain-controlling effect during the first 24 hours after the biopsy procedure in comparison to Lidocaine injection alone, as measured by VAS score scale.     

Comparative Outcome Analysis of N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate Embolization of the False Lumen Versus Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Aortic Dissection

PurposeTo evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of N-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) embolization for the treatment of aortic dissection.Materials and MethodsIn this single-center retrospective study conducted from February 2003 to June 2019, NBCA embolization of an aortic false lumen was attempted in 12 patients (median age, 59 y; range, 41–68 y) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was performed in 53 patients (median age, 59 y; range, 37–70 y) for aortic dissection with one or more indications of persisting pain, malperfusion, rupture or impending rupture, maximal aortic diameter ≥ 55 mm, and/or rapid aortic enlargement. The main exclusion criterion for embolization was the presence of fast blood flow in the aortic false lumen on aortography. The efficacy of NBCA embolization and TEVAR was compared by evaluating technical and clinical outcomes, repeat intervention–free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS).ResultsTechnical success was achieved in 11 of the 12 patients treated with NBCA embolization (91.7%), and clinical success was achieved in 9 of these 11 (81.8%). No significant difference was found between embolization and TEVAR in clinical success rates (embolization, 81.8%; TEVAR, 84.9%; P = .409) or procedure-related complications (embolization, 1 patient [8.3%]; TEVAR, 4 patients [7.5%]; P = .701). In addition, embolization showed comparable 5-y RFS (embolization, 82.5% ± 9.3; TEVAR, 85.5% ± 4.8; P = .641) and 5-y OS (embolization, 100%; TEVAR, 95.4% ± 3.2; P = .744) rates to TEVAR.ConclusionsNBCA embolization of the false lumen in aortic dissection seems to be a safe and effective treatment modality for the closure of false lumen in selected patients.     

Significant reduction of postoperative pain and opioid analgesics requirement with an Enhanced Recovery After Thoracic Surgery protocol

ObjectiveTo evaluate differences in postoperative pain control and opioids requirement in thoracic surgical patients following implementation of an Enhanced Recovery after Thoracic Surgery protocol with a comprehensive postoperative pain management strategy.Material and MethodsA retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing pulmonary resections by robotic thoracoscopy or thoracotomy from January 1, 2017, to January 31, 2019, was conducted. Multimodal pain management strategy (opioid-sparing analgesics, infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine to intercostal spaces and surgical sites, and elimination of thoracic epidural analgesia use in thoracotomy patients) was implemented as part of Enhanced Recovery after Thoracic Surgery on February 1, 2018. Outcome metrics including patient-reported pain levels, in-hospital and postdischarge opioids use, postoperative complications, and length of stay were compared before and after protocol implementation.ResultsIn total, 310 robotic thoracoscopy and 62 thoracotomy patients met the inclusion criteria. This pain management strategy was associated with significant reduction of postoperative pain in both groups with an overall reduction of postoperative opioids requirement. Median in-hospital opioids use (morphine milligram equivalent per day) was reduced from 30 to 18.36 (P = .009) for the robotic thoracoscopy group and slightly increased from 15.48 to 21.0 (P = .27) in the thoracotomy group. More importantly, median postdischarge opioids prescribed (total morphine milligram equivalent) was significantly reduced from 480.0 to 150.0 (P < .001) and 887.5 to 150.0 (P < .001) for the thoracoscopy and thoracotomy groups, respectively. Similar short-term perioperative outcomes were observed in both groups before and following protocol implementation.ConclusionsImplementation of Enhanced Recovery after Thoracic Surgery allows safe elimination of epidural use, better pain control, and less postoperative opioids use, especially a drastic reduction of postdischarge opioid need, without adversely affecting outcomes.     

Outcomes and risk management in type B aortic dissection patients with acute kidney injury: a concise review

PurposeType B aortic dissection is a rare but life-threatening disease. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was widely used for Type B aortic dissection patients in the last decade due to the lower mortality and morbidity compared with open chest surgical repair (OCSR). AKI in type B aortic dissection is a well-recognized complication and indicates poor short-term and long-term outcome. The objective of this concise review was to identify the risk factors and the impact of AKI on type B aortic dissection patients.Methods and resultsA literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library with the search terms ‘type B aortic dissection’ and ‘acute kidney injury’ (AKI), and all English-language literatures published in print or available online from inception through August 2020 were thoroughly reviewed. Studies that reported relative AKI risks and outcomes in type B aortic dissection patient were included. Major mechanisms of AKI in type B aortic dissection included renal hypoperfusion, inflammation response, and the use of contrast medium. Type B aortic dissection patients with AKI significantly had increased hospital stay duration, need of renal replacement therapy, and 30-d and 1-year mortality.ConclusionsAKI in type B aortic dissection is a well-recognized complication and associated with poor short-term and long-term outcome. Early identification of high-risk patients, early diagnosis of AKI, stabilization of the hemodynamic parameters, avoidance of nephrotoxic drugs, and optimization of the use of contrast agents are the major strategies for the reduction of AKI in type B aortic dissection patients.     

胸段食管鳞癌术后复发模式及术后放疗靶区的研究北大核心

目的:研究胸段食管鳞癌术后复发模式,为术后放疗靶区勾画提供参考。方法:回顾分析我院2012年7月至2017年5月收治术后复发的81例胸段食管鳞癌患者的临床资料,参照AJCC第八版食管癌分期,将第1-8M站定义为上中纵隔淋巴结区,8Lo、9、15站定义为下纵隔淋巴结区,16-20站定义为上腹部淋巴结区。标记患者的复发部位,并分析局部复发、区域复发和远处转移的模式。结果:中位复发时间为12个月(2~103个月)。6例(7.4%)患者发生单纯局部复发,64例(79.0%)患者发生区域复发,11例(13.6%)患者发生远处转移。区域淋巴结复发中最高危的复发区域为上中纵隔淋巴引流区,此区域包含了82.8%的复发淋巴结,其次为上腹部淋巴结引流区(13.6%)。11例患者发生上腹部淋巴结复发,其中10(90.9%)例为胸下段,7例(63.6%)患者术后分期≥Ⅲ_(b)期。结论:胸段食管鳞癌术后复发模式以区域淋巴结复发为主,上中纵隔淋巴引流区为最高危复发区域,术后放疗靶区应重点包含。对于术后分期较晚的胸下段食管鳞癌,上腹部淋巴结引流区可能需要涵盖在放疗靶区内。吻合口、瘤床和下纵隔复发风险低,可不必常规涵盖在放疗靶区内。     

The Newborn Infant Parasympathetic Evaluation (NIPE™) monitor predicts post-operative pain in children undergoing day-procedures: A prospective observational study

BackgroundPain assessment is essential for the administration of appropriate analgesia. Currently, clinicians use surrogate methods, such as heart rate or behavioural pain scales, to estimate pain in neonates and infants. The Newborn and Infant Parasympathetic Evaluation (NIPE™) monitor aims to provide an objective numeric value (NIPE index) of pain through a continuous assessment of the patient's parasympathetic activity. The aim of this study was to determine if the intraoperative NIPE index monitoring could predict postoperative pain in neonates and infants.MethodsThis prospective observational pilot study included neonates and infants undergoing elective day-surgical procedures (n = 50). Intraoperatively, NIPE indices at 0 (NIPE₀), 10 (NIPE₁₀), 20 (NIPE₂₀), 30 (NIPE₃₀) minutes and at completion of surgery (NIPEe), were recorded; the median NIPE index (NIPEm) was calculated for the entire procedure. Postoperative Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale scores were calculated by the nursing staff blinded to the intraoperative NIPE indices.ResultsLinear regression documented an association between the NIPEm and postoperative FLACC score at 0 (r = 0.31, p = 0.03) and 10 min (r = 0.36, p = 0.01). No significant associations were observed for FLACC scores at 20 (r = 0.21, p = 0.2) and 30 min (r = 0.36, p > 0.9). Multiple regression analysis revealed that intraoperative NIPE₁₀, NIPE₂₀, NIPE₃₀ and NIPEe also predicted the FLACC score at 0 min (p = 0.003).ConclusionThe intraoperative NIPE index is predictive of pain in the immediate postoperative period. This association was lost at 20 min likely due to nursing intervention to administer analgesia. NIPE monitoring could be useful in facilitating postoperative pain management in infants.Level of evidenceII.Type of studyStudy of Diagnostic Test.     

单孔胸腔镜下肺癌术后胸腔引流时间的影响因素分析北大核心

目的:探讨单孔胸腔镜下肺癌手术术后胸腔引流时间的影响因素。方法:本研究采用回顾性分析方法,回顾我院2018年01月至2019年12月原发性肺癌患者经单孔胸腔镜手术治疗的病例199例。按照术后胸腔引流时间分为两组,Ⅰ组(术后胸腔引流时间<5天)和Ⅱ组(术后胸腔引流时间≥5天)。对于影响术后胸腔引流时间的可能因素在两组间先采用单因素分析的方法筛选,再将筛选出来的对术后胸腔引流时间可能有意义的影响因素进行二项Logistic多因素回归分析。结果:经单因素分析及二项Logistic多因素回归分析结果显示:年龄≥60岁、手术部位、肺段切除术、胸膜粘连、手术时间≥180 min、术后早期下床活动是术后胸腔引流时间的独立影响因素(P<0.05)。结论:对于具有多个延长术后胸腔引流时间的独立影响因素的患者,应制定个体化管理方案,尽可能减少术后胸腔引流时间,减少住院天数,加快患者康复。     

猪尾巴导管在单孔胸腔镜肺肿瘤手术中应用的有效性评估:基于倾向性评分匹配法的研究

目的评估猪尾巴导管在单孔胸腔镜肺肿瘤手术中应用的有效性。方法回顾性分析2020年1月至12月上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院东院接受单孔胸腔镜肺肿瘤手术的患者共441例,根据是否放置猪尾巴导管分为胸管组和猪尾巴管组,通过倾向性评分匹配法进行1∶1匹配,对比两组患者围手术期的各项指标。结果匹配后每组143例配对成功,匹配后两组间基线特征无统计学差异。对比两组围手术期指标发现,猪尾巴管组患者术后3天胸腔引流总量显著多于胸管组(375.49 ml对285.03 ml,P<0.001),术后两周复查CT示胸腔积液量显著少于胸管组(131.77 ml对178.84 ml,P=0.032),两组术后疼痛评分、引流天数及住院天数无明显统计学差异。结论加放猪尾巴导管可有效改善单孔胸腔镜肺肿瘤术后胸腔引流情况,且不增加患者术后疼痛,不延长胸腔引流及住院天数。     

Intervention rates and outcomes in medically managed uncomplicated descending thoracic aortic dissections

ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term incidence and outcome of aortic interventions for medically managed uncomplicated thoracic aortic dissections.MethodsBetween January 2012 and December 2018, 91 patients were discharged home with an uncomplicated, medically treated aortic dissection (involving the descending aorta with or without aortic arch involvement, no ascending involvement). After a median period of 4 (first quartile: 2, third quartile: 11) months, 30 patients (33%) required an aortic intervention. Patient characteristics, radiographic, treatment, and follow-up data were compared for patients with and without aortic interventions. A competing risk regression model was analyzed to identify independent predictors of aortic intervention and to predict the risk for intervention.ResultsPatients who underwent aortic interventions had significantly larger thoracic (P = .041) and abdominal (P = .015) aortic diameters, the dissection was significantly longer (P = .035), there were more communications between both lumina (P = .040), and the first communication was significantly closer to the left subclavian artery (P = .049). A descending thoracic aortic diameter exceeding 45 mm was predictive for an aortic intervention (P = .001; subdistribution hazard ratio: 3.51). The risk for aortic intervention was 27% ± 10% and 36% ± 11% after 1 and 3 years, respectively. Fourteen patients (47%) underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair, 11 patients (37%) thoracic endovascular aortic repair and left carotid to subclavian bypass, 3 patients (10%) total arch replacement with the frozen elephant trunk technique, and 2 patients (7%) thoracoabdominal aortic replacement. We observed no in-hospital mortality.ConclusionsThe need for secondary aortic interventions in patients with initially medically managed, uncomplicated descending aortic dissections is substantial. The full spectrum of aortic treatment options (endovascular, hybrid, conventional open surgical) is required in these patients.