Sevoflurane: are there differences in products?

Sevoflurane is currently available in the United States from two manufacturers: Ultane (Abbott Laboratories, Inc.) and a generic product, Sevoflurane Inhalation Anesthetic (Baxter Healthcare Corp.). These products are rated therapeutically equivalent by the Food and Drug Administration, but there are some differences. Ultane is made in a single-step synthetic process and generic sevoflurane is manufactured using a three-step process. Ultane contains >300 ppm water and generic sevoflurane contains < or =130 ppm water. Ultane is supplied in a plastic polyethylene naphthalate polymer bottle, while generic sevoflurane is supplied in lacquer-lined aluminum bottles. The manufacturing processes and impurities, sevoflurane degradation resulting from Lewis acid reactions, and suitability of nonglass containers for sevoflurane are discussed.     

Gastrocnemius mitochondrial respiration: are there any differences between men and women?

Introduction

Work on human and mouse skeletal muscle by our group and others has demonstrated that aging and age-related degenerative diseases are associated with mitochondrial dysfunction, which may be more prevalent in males. There have been, however, no studies that specifically examine the influence of male or female sex on human skeletal muscle mitochondrial respiration. The purpose of this study was to compare mitochondrial respiration in the gastrocnemius of adult men and women.

Methods

Gastrocnemius muscle was obtained from male (n = 19) and female (n = 11) human subjects with healthy lower-extremity musculoskeletal and arterial systems and normal ambulatory function. All patients were undergoing operations for the treatment of varicose veins in their legs. Mitochondrial respiration was determined with a Clark electrode in an oxygraph cell containing saponin-skinned muscle bundles. Complex I-, II-, III-, and IV-dependent respiration was measured individually and normalized to muscle weight, total protein content, and citrate synthase (CS, index of mitochondrial content).

Results

Male and female patients had no evidence of musculoskeletal or arterial disease and did not differ with regard to age, race, body mass index, or other clinical characteristics. Complex I-, II-, III-, and IV-dependent respiration normalized to muscle weight, total protein content, and CS did not statistically differ for males compared with females.

Conclusions

Our study evaluates, for the first time, gastrocnemius mitochondrial respiration of adult men and women who have healthy musculoskeletal and arterial systems and normal ambulatory function. Our data demonstrate there are no differences in the respiration of gastrocnemius mitochondria between men and women.     

Robot‐assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences?

OBJECTIVE: To compare our experience of pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RAP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The two techniques were compared retrospectively in 100 patients with localized prostate cancer who had LRP or RAP (50 each). Both groups were similar in age, serum prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score and clinical stage. Their charts were reviewed, collating intraoperative data and early functional outcome. RESULTS: The mean surgical time for LRP and RAP was 235 and 202 min (P > 0.05) and mean (95% confidence interval) blood loss 299 (40) and 206 (63) mL (P = 0.014), with no transfusions in either group. The positive margin rate did not differ significantly (14% LRP and 12% RAP) and there was no biochemical recurrence in either group. Early functional outcomes were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Both LRP and RAP are technically demanding, but feasible, with the patient clearly benefiting. There were no major surgical differences between the techniques, but RAP is more costly.     

African American consent and nonconsent cases: are there significant differences?

BACKGROUND: Previous research has examined the differences in organ donation consent rates between African Americans and other racial/ethnic groups. However, there is limited examination of whether differences exist between African American families that consent and those that do not. OBJECTIVE: To examine if there are significant differences between African American families that consent to donation compared to those that do not. METHODS: A random sample of 120 African American potential donor cases from an academic medical center between 1997 and 2004 were included in this study. Variables of interest included next-of-kin relationships, family interactions, knowledge of donor wishes, family initiation of the donation discussion, and satisfaction with the donation process. RESULTS: The data include 32 consent and 88 nonconsent cases. Compared to nonconsent cases, consent cases differed significantly in next-of-kin knowledge of donor wishes, frequent involvement of parents, and infrequent involvement of spouses. Donor wishes were known in 19% of consent cases but in none of the nonconsent cases. A parent was the dominant next-of-kin decision maker in 68% of consent cases, compared to 36% of nonconsent cases. A spouse assumed the dominant role in 29% of nonconsent cases but in only 6% of consent cases. Of these differences, wishes known, parental involvement, and spousal involvement were statistically significant (P = .000, P = .002, and P = .013, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the statistically significant differences between African American consent and nonconsent cases: knowledge of donor wishes and those involved in the donation decision. These results reinforce the importance of programs that encourage African American families to discuss donation with loved ones.     

Spinal anaesthesia in full-term infants of 0-6 months: are there any differences regarding age?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to report our experience concerning the effectiveness, complications and safety of spinal anaesthesia, and to determine whether spinal anaesthesia was effective in full-term infants undergoing elective inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: Sixty-eight full-term infants aged < 6 months were included in the study. Infants were divided into three groups; Group I (< 1 month, n = 20), Group II (> 1 and < 3 months, n = 26), and Group III (3-6 months, n = 22). All spinal blocks were performed under mask inhalation anaesthesia. A dose of bupivacaine 0.5% 0.5 mg kg(-1) was used for infants under 5kg and 0.4 mg kg(-1) for those over 5 kg. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate and SPO2 were recorded before and after spinal anaesthesia at 5 min intervals. Time to onset of analgesia, time to start of operation, duration of operation, anaesthesia and hospitalization, postoperative analgesic requirement and complications were recorded. RESULTS: Adequate spinal anaesthesia without sedation was better, time to obtain maximum cutaneous analgesia was shorter and need for sedation and postoperative analgesic requirement were significantly lower in Group I. Although heart rate, mean arterial pressure and respiratory rate decreased < 20% in all groups following spinal analgesia, the decrease in Group I was lower than the others. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anaesthesia is an effective choice in inguinal hernia repair for full-term infants aged < 1 month, providing excellent and reliable surgical conditions. However, this technique is not as useful for infants aged between 1 and 6 months.     

Reasons for revision of failed hemiarthroplasty: Are there any differences between unipolar and bipolar?

Background

Hemiarthroplasty (HA) is an effective procedure for treatment of femoral neck fracture. However, it is debatable whether unipolar or bipolar HA is the most suitable implant.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare the causes of failure and longevity in both types of HA.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 133 cases that underwent revision surgery of HA between 2002 and 2012. The causes of revision surgery were identified and stratified into early (≤?5 years) failure and late (>?5 years) failure. Survival analyses were performed for each implant type.

Results

The common causes for revision were aseptic loosening (49.6%), infection (22.6%) and acetabular erosion (15.0%). Unipolar and bipolar HA were not different in causes for revision, but the unipolar group had a statistically significantly higher number of acetabular erosion events compared with the bipolar group (p?=?0.002). In the early period, 24 unipolar HA (52.9%) and 28 bipolar HA (34.1%) failed. There were no statistically significant differences in the numbers of revised HA in each period between the two groups (p?=?0.138). The median survival times in the unipolar and bipolar groups were 84.0?±?24.5 and 120.0?±?5.5 months, respectively. However, the survival times of both implants were not statistically significantly different.

Conclusions

Aseptic loosening was the most common reason for revision surgery after hemiarthroplasty surgery in early and late failures. Unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty were not different in terms of causes of failure and survivorship except bipolar hemiarthroplasty had many fewer acetabular erosion events.

     

Day surgery: how far can we go and are there still any limits?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Day surgery continues to be a popular form of care, and patients and procedures of ever-increasing complexity are now being considered. As previous restrictions are regularly swept away, it is reasonable to ask where the new limits are and whether there are still any absolute contraindications to day surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent evidence provides confirmation that some of the more complex, minimally invasive surgical procedures, such as laparoscopic nephrectomy, can safely and successfully be undertaken on a day-case basis. This transformation is clearly dependent on the development of appropriate technologies, but also involves a realistic assessment of when complications will occur and whether or not these will be prevented by an overnight hospital stay. A similar approach can be applied to the impact of various medical comorbidities, with current evidence suggesting that many predict intraoperative, but not postoperative, complications. The interactions of various factors -medical and surgical - however, may be more important. SUMMARY: Day surgery has clearly expanded beyond its previous limits, but some absolute contraindications still remain. A great deal is possible, but not everything that can be done necessarily benefits patients and some cases may only be feasible in expert hands and in ideal conditions.     

Injuries in jumpers - are there any patterns?

Suicide as a cause of death, affects every health system, and is a particular problem in heavily urbanised states and low and middle income countries(which account for 75% of suicide deaths). The World Health Organisation records that 800000 commit suicide each year, representing 1.4% of annual global deaths, and that suicide was the second leading cause of death in 15-29year-olds across the world in 2012. In the United Kingdom, jumping from height accounts for 3%-5% of the 140000 suicide attempts annually is similar incidence to the rest of Europe. The Medline and EMBASE were interrogated for studies examining suicide caused by jumping from height. Manual screening of titles and abstracts was used to identify relevant works before data was extracted and systematically reviewed to identify the characteristics of a patient who jumps from height to commit suicide, delineate their patterns of injury and explore techniques that could be used to limit its occurrence. Emergency departments receiving patients who jump from a height need to have an understanding of the potential pathology that is likely to be encountered in order to deliver multidisciplinary, efficient and timely care in order that the impact of this devastating physical, psychological and social problem could modified to the benefit of the patients involved.     

Are there any differences in the cardiovascular tolerance between classical NSAIDs and coxibs?

Three placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated deleterious cardiovascular (CV) effects of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and pare/valdecoxib. It remains to be determined whether this CV toxicity is specific to coxibs, or shared with all non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). Seven meta-analyses show that, in comparison with non-specific NSAIDs, the risk of thrombotic CV accident is increased with rofecoxib and celecoxib, but not with valdecoxib or lumiracoxib. Concerning the risk of thrombotic CV accident, seven of the ten observational studies which have evaluated the risk, have found an increased risk for the non-specific NSAID in comparison with non-exposed subjects,. The seven observational studies, which evaluated the risk of coxibs, have all found an increased risk with rofecoxib, and two with celecoxib. Three studies out of six have shown an increase of risk with rofecoxib and one study out of five with celecoxib. Two of the three studies, which have compared rofecoxib with celecoxib, have found an increased risk with rofecoxib. Concerning the risk of arterial hypertension, oedemas or congestive cardiac insufficiency, a meta-analysis and a randomised trial have shown a deleterious effect of rofecoxib in comparison with celecoxib and non-specific NSAID. Two studies have shown a deleterious effect of the non-selective NSAID and three a deleterious effect of rofecoxib in comparison with non-exposed subjects. Three studies have demonstrated a deleterious effect of rofecoxib in comparison with non-specific NSAID. No study has shown any deleterious effect of celecoxib in comparison with subjects non-exposed or exposed to non-specific NSAID. These studies suggest that all the NSAID, specific or not, increase the CV and renal risk. This risk seems variable from a compound to another one and must be evaluated, for each patient, according to the susceptibility and associated risk factors. While waiting for other long-term controlled studies, the available data show the existence of a risk of CV secondary effect linked to the class of NSAID, specific (coxibs) or not.     

alpha(1)-blockers for BPH: are there differences?

alpha(1)-blockers are well established for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO), previously referred to as benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The various available alpha(1)-blockers do not differ in terms of their clinical efficacy, but there are several indications that alpha(1)-blockers differ qualitatively with regard to their cardiovascular safety and tolerability, albeit the quantification of these differences is subject to several constraints and pitfalls. Clinical selectivity, i.e. the capacity of separating between desired urological and undesired (actually redundant) cardiovascular alpha(1)-blockade is not unlikely to relate to pharmacological selectivity (the relative preference to block the alpha(1A)- and alpha(1D)-adrenoceptor subtypes in vitro, whilst hardly blocking alpha(1B)-adrenoceptors). On the other hand, both clinical and pharmacological selectivity are not unequivocally reflected by experiments on so-called functional selectivity (in vivo experiments that differentiate urological and cardiovascular effects). Generally, alpha(1)-blockers that are efficacious in hypertension (doxazosin, terazosin, alfuzosin) are more likely to impair safety-relevant, physiological blood pressure control in normotensives with LUTS than tamsulosin, which does not reduce elevated blood pressure in comparison with placebo and has little effect on orthostatic blood pressure control. However, clinical selectivity and cardiovascular safety are also defined by the treatment regimen (dose, dosage interval, formulation, step-up dose-increments for treatment initiation, etc.) and by relevant patient-treatment interactions (co-morbidity and co-medication in particular). On the basis of the available information, tamsulosin administered once daily at a dose of 0.4 mg after breakfast (without step-up increments) can be accepted as a highly convenient and efficacious way to treat LUTS with a low cardiovascular safety risk, i.e. with a high level of clinically selectivity. Copyrightz1999S. KargerAG,Basel     

Uncomplicated type B dissection: are there any indications for early intervention?

Currently thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) has a limited role in uncomplicated type B aortic dissection. Aggressive medical therapy is deemed appropriate for most of these patients allowing one-year survival rate of 80-90%. Outcomes are less than optimal in the long term, however, since aorta related complications (disease progression, rapid deterioration, acute rupture and elevated mortality) may occur in up to 50% of patients at five years. Subgroups of patients with uncomplicated type B dissection may benefit from early stent-graft placement, but identification of these remains difficult. Only future studies, especially randomized trials, will clarify the utility of early TEVAR in the setting of uncomplicated acute type B dissection.