PROSPECT guideline for oncological breast surgery: a systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management recommendations

Analgesic protocols used to treat pain after breast surgery vary significantly. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature on this topic and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after oncological breast surgery. A systematic review using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidance with procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials assessing postoperative pain using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified. Seven hundred and forty-nine studies were found, of which 53 randomised controlled trials and nine meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Quantitative analysis suggests that dexamethasone and gabapentin reduced postoperative pain. The use of paravertebral blocks also reduced postoperative pain scores, analgesia consumption and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Intra-operative opioid requirements were documented to be lower when a pectoral nerves block was performed, which also reduced postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption. We recommend basic analgesics (i.e. paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) administered pre-operatively or intra-operatively and continued postoperatively. In addition, pre-operative gabapentin and dexamethasone are also recommended. In major breast surgery, a regional anaesthetic technique such as paravertebral block or pectoral nerves block and/or local anaesthetic wound infiltration may be considered for additional pain relief. Paravertebral block may be continued postoperatively using catheter techniques. Opioids should be reserved as rescue analgesics in the postoperative period. Research is needed to evaluate the role of novel regional analgesic techniques such as erector spinae plane or retrolaminar plane blocks combined with basic analgesics in an enhanced recovery setting.     

Surgical training for anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate

Anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate has been proposed as a potentially superior benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery than conventional transurethral resection of prostate. However, the learning curve of the procedure is steep, hence limiting its generalisability worldwide. In order to overcome the learning curve, a proper surgical training is extremely important. This review article discussed about various aspects of surgical training in anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate. In summary, no matter what surgical technique or energy modality you use, the principle of anatomical enucleation should be followed. When one starts to perform prostate enucleation, a 50 to 80 g prostate appears to be the ‘best case’ to begin with. Mentorship is extremely important to shorten the learning curve and to prevent drastic complications from the procedure. A proficiency-based progression training programme with the use of simulation and training models should be the best way to teach and learn about prostate enucleation. Enucleation ratio efficacy is the preferred measure for assessing skill level and learning curve of prostate enucleation. Morcellation efficiency is commonly used to assess morcellation performance, but the importance of safety rather than efficiency must be emphasised.     

COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients: a single-center experience

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients may be at risk for severe COVID-19. Data on the clinical course of COVID-19 in immunosuppressed patients are limited, and the effective treatment strategy for these patients is unknown. We describe our institutional experience with COVID-19 in SOT. Demographic, clinical, and treatment data were extracted from the electronic patient files. A total of 23 SOT transplant recipients suffering from COVID-19 were identified (n = 3 heart; n = 15 kidney; n = 1 kidney-after-heart; n = 3 lung, and n = 1 liver transplant recipient). The presenting symptoms were similar to nonimmunocompromised patients. Eighty-three percent (19/23) of the patients required hospitalization, but only two of these were transferred to the intensive care unit. Five patients died from COVID-19; all had high Clinical Frailty Scores. In four of these patients, mechanical ventilation was deemed futile. In 57% of patients, the immunosuppressive therapy was not changed and only three patients were treated with chloroquine. Most patients recovered without experimental antiviral therapy. Modification of the immunosuppressive regimen alone could be a therapeutic option for SOT recipients suffering from moderate to severe COVID-19. Pre-existent frailty is associated with death from COVID-19.