Dexamethasone and Surgical-Site Infection

Paracetamol, ibuprofen and dexamethasone for pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty: protocol for the randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel 4-group, blinded, multicentre RECIPE trial

INTRODUCTION

Multimodal analgesia with paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and glucocorticoid is recommended for hip arthroplasty, but with uncertain effects of the different combinations. We aim to investigate benefit and harm of different combinations of paracetamol, ibuprofen and dexamethasone following total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

RECIPE is a randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel 4-group, blinded trial with 90-day and 1-year follow-up performed at nine Danish hospitals. Interventions are initiated preoperatively and continued for 24 hours postoperatively. Eligible participants undergoing total hip arthroplasty are randomised to:group A: oral paracetamol 1000 mg × 4+oral ibuprofen 400 mg × 4+intravenous placebo; group B: oral paracetamol 1000 mg × 4+intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg+oral placebo; group C: oral ibuprofen 400 mg × 4+intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg+oral placebo; group D: oral paracetamol 1000 mg × 4+oral ibuprofen 400 mg × 4+intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg.Primary outcome is cumulative opioid consumption at 0-24 hours. Secondary outcomes are pain at rest, during mobilisation and during a 5 m walk and adverse events. Follow-up includes serious adverse events and patient reported outcome measures at 90 days and 1 year. A total of 1060 participants are needed to demonstrate a difference of 8 mg in 24-hour morphine consumption assuming an SD of 24.5 mg, a risk of type I errors of 0.0083 and a risk of type 2 errors of 0.2. Primary analysis will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis.With this trial we aim to verify recommendations for pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty, and investigate the role of dexamethasone as an analgesic adjuvant to paracetamol and ibuprofen.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial is approved by the Region Zealand Committee on Health Research Ethics (SJ-799). Plans for dissemination include publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04123873.

Benefit of a flash dose of corticosteroids in digestive surgical oncology: a multicenter, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial (CORTIFRENCH)

Background

The modulation of perioperative inflammation seems crucial to improve postoperative morbidity and cancer-related outcomes in patients undergoing oncological surgery. Data from the literature suggest that perioperative corticosteroids decrease inflammatory markers and might be associated with fewer complications in esophageal, liver, pancreatic and colorectal surgery. Their benefit on cancer-related outcomes has not been assessed.

Methods

The CORTIFRENCH trial is a phase III multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial to assess the impact of a flash dose of preoperative corticosteroids versus placebo on postoperative morbidity and cancer-related outcomes after elective curative-intent surgery for digestive cancer. The primary endpoint is the frequency of patients with postoperative major complications occurring within 30 days after surgery (defined as all complications with Clavien-Dindo grade > 2). The secondary endpoints are the overall survival at 3 years, the disease-free survival at 3 years, the frequency of patients with intraabdominal infections and postoperative infections within 30 days after surgery and the hospital length of stay. We hypothesize a reduced risk of major complications and a better disease-survival at 3 years in the experimental group. Allowing for 5% of drop-out, 1 200 patients (600 per arm) should be included.

Discussion

This will be the first trial focusing on the impact of perioperative corticosteroids on cancer related outcomes. If significant, it might be a strong improvement on oncological outcomes for patients undergoing surgery for digestive cancers.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03875690, Registered on March 15, 2019, URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03875690.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09998-z.

Emerging Paradigms in the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection: The Patient Microbiome and Antimicrobial Resistance

This article summarizes new scientific evidence on the pathogenesis of surgical site infection, including the roles of the patient microbiome and antimicrobial resistance, and reviews changes in guidelines and clinical practices for prevention.

Inclusion, characteristics, and outcomes of male and female participants in large international perioperative studies

BACKGROUND

We compared baseline characteristics and outcomes and evaluated the subgroup effects of randomised interventions by sex in males and females in large international perioperative trials.

METHODS

Nine randomised trials and two cohort studies recruiting adult patients, conducted between 1995 and 2020, were included. Baseline characteristics and outcomes common to six or more studies were evaluated. Regression models included terms for sex, study, and an interaction between the two. Comparing outcomes without adjustment for baseline characteristics represents the 'total effect' of sex on the outcome.

RESULTS

Of 54 626 participants, 58% were male and 42% were female. Females were less likely to have ASA physical status ≥3 (56% vs 64%), to smoke (15% vs 23%), have coronary artery disease (21% vs 32%), or undergo vascular surgery (10% vs 23%). The pooled incidence of death was 1.6% in females and 1.8% in males (risk ratio [RR] 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-1.05; P=0.20), of myocardial infarction was 4.2% vs 4.5% (RR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.81-1.03; P=0.10), of stroke was 0.5% vs 0.6% (RR 1.03; 95% CI: 0.79-1.35; P=0.81), and of surgical site infection was 8.6% vs 8.3% (RR 1.03; 95% CI: 0.79-1.35; P=0.70). Treatment effects of three interventions demonstrated statistically significant effect modification by sex.

CONCLUSIONS

Females were in the minority in all included studies. They were healthier than males, but outcomes were comparable. Further research is needed to understand the reasons for this discrepancy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Registry of Meta-Research (UID: IRMR_000011; 5 January 2021).

Regional anesthesia and acute perioperative pain management in thoracic surgery: a narrative review

Background and Objective

Thoracic surgery causes significant pain which can negatively affect pulmonary function and increase risk of postoperative complications. Effective analgesia is important to reduce splinting and atelectasis. Systemic opioids and thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) have been used for decades and are effective at treating acute post-thoracotomy pain, although both have risks and adverse effects. The advancement of thoracoscopic surgery, a focus on multimodal and opioid-sparing analgesics, and the development of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia techniques have greatly expanded the options for acute pain management after thoracic surgery. Despite the expansion of surgical techniques and analgesic approaches, there is no clear optimal approach to pain management. This review aims to summarize the body of literature regarding systemic and regional anesthetic techniques for thoracic surgery in both thoracotomy and minimally invasive approaches, with a goal of providing a foundation for providers to make individualized decisions for patients depending on surgical approach and patient factors, and to discuss avenues for future research.

Methods

We searched PubMed and Google Scholar databases from inception to May 2021 using the terms “thoracic surgery”, “thoracic surgery AND pain management”, “thoracic surgery AND analgesia”, “thoracic surgery AND regional anesthesia”, “thoracic surgery AND epidural”. We considered articles written in English and available to the reader.

Key Content and Findings

There is a wide variety of strategies for treating acute pain after thoracic surgery, including multimodal opioid and non-opioid systemic analgesics, regional anesthesia including TEA and paravertebral blocks (PVB), and a recent expansion in the use of novel fascial plane blocks especially for thoracoscopy. The body of literature on the effectiveness of different approaches for thoracotomy and thoracoscopy is a rapidly expanding field and area of active debate.

Conclusions

The optimal analgesic approach for thoracic surgery may depend on patient factors, surgical factors, and institutional factors. Although TEA may provide optimal analgesia after thoracotomy, PVB and emerging fascial plane blocks may offer effective alternatives. A tailored approach using multimodal systemic therapies and regional anesthesia is important, and future studies comparing techniques are necessary to further investigate the optimal approach to improve patient outcomes.

Multimodal Analgesia in the Aesthetic Plastic Surgery: Concepts and Strategies

Postoperative pain management is crucial for aesthetic plastic surgery procedures. Poorly controlled postoperative pain results in negative physiologic effects and can affect length of stay and patient satisfaction. In light of the growing opioid epidemic, plastic surgeons must be keenly familiar with opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia regimens to optimize postoperative pain control.

Methods

A review study based on multimodal analgesia was conducted.

Results

We present an overview of pain management strategies pertaining to aesthetic plastic surgery and offer a multimodal analgesia model for outpatient aesthetic surgery practices.

Conclusion

This review article presents an evidence-based approach to multimodal pain management for aesthetic plastic surgery.

How to close the gaps between evidence and practice for perioperative opioids

Excellent resources are now available that distil the best evidence around opioid prescribing in the perioperative period, including the list of recommendations provided by the international multidisciplinary consensus statement on the prevention of opioid-related harm in adult surgical patients. While some of the recommendations have been widely accepted as an essential part of postoperative practice, others have had slow and variable adoption. This article focuses on the items where theory and practice still diverge and suggests how best to close that gap. We must also remain mindful that while education is essential, it is on the lowest rung of implementation efficacy and, on its own, is a poor driver of behaviour change. Ongoing structural nudges and the use of local procedure-specific analgesic pathways will also be helpful in addressing the gap between evidence-based recommendations and practice.

Effect of dexamethasone as an analgesic adjuvant to multimodal pain treatment after total knee arthroplasty: randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of one and two doses of intravenous dexamethasone in patients after total knee arthroplasty.

DESIGN

Randomised, blinded, placebo controlled trial with follow-up at 90 days.

SETTING

Five Danish hospitals, September 2018 to March 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

485 adult participants undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

INTERVENTION

A computer generated randomised sequence stratified for site was used to allocate participants to one of three groups: DX1 (dexamethasone (24 mg)+placebo); DX2 (dexamethasone (24 mg)+dexamethasone (24 mg)); or placebo (placebo+placebo). The intervention was given preoperatively and after 24 hours. Participants, investigators, and outcome assessors were blinded. All participants received paracetamol, ibuprofen, and local infiltration analgesia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was total intravenous morphine consumption 0 to 48 hours postoperatively. Multiplicity adjusted threshold for statistical significance was P<0.017 and minimal important difference was 10 mg morphine. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain.

RESULTS

485 participants were randomised: 161 to DX1, 162 to DX2, and 162 to placebo. Data from 472 participants (97.3%) were included in the primary outcome analysis. The median (interquartile range) morphine consumptions at 0-48 hours were: DX1 37.9 mg (20.7 to 56.7); DX2 35.0 mg (20.6 to 52.0); and placebo 43.0 mg (28.7 to 64.0). Hodges-Lehmann median differences between groups were: -2.7 mg (98.3% confidence interval -9.3 to 3.7), P=0.30 between DX1 and DX2; 7.8 mg (0.7 to 14.7), P=0.008 between DX1 and placebo; and 10.7 mg (4.0 to 17.3), P<0.001 between DX2 and placebo. Postoperative pain was reduced at 24 hours with one dose, and at 48 hours with two doses, of dexamethasone.

CONCLUSION

Two doses of dexamethasone reduced morphine consumption during 48 hours after total knee arthroplasty and reduced postoperative pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03506789.

Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults: current controversies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continue to plague the surgical patient population with an adverse impact on postoperative outcomes. The aim of this review is to critically assess current evidence for PONV management, including studies evaluating baseline risk reduction and antiemetic prophylaxis, to provide a pragmatic approach to prevention and treatment of PONV in routine clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple recent reviews and guidelines have been published on this topic with some limitations. In the current ERAS era, all patients irrespective of their PONV risk should receive two to three antiemetics for prophylaxis. Patients at a high risk of PONV [i.e. prior history of PONV, history of motion sickness, high opioid requirements after surgery (e.g. inability to use nonopioid analgesic techniques)] should receive three to four antiemetics for prophylaxis.

SUMMARY

This review provides a practical approach to PONV prevention based on recent literature.

Surgical Site Infections

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are among the most common and most costly health care-associated infections, leading to adverse patient outcomes and death. Wound contamination occurs with each incision, but proven strategies exist to decrease the risk of SSI. In particular, improved adherence to evidence-based preventive measures related to appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis can decrease the rate of SSI. Aggressive surgical debridement and effective antimicrobial therapy are needed to optimize the treatment of SSI.

Paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and glucocorticoids for postoperative pain: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Multimodal analgesia is the leading principle for managing postoperative pain. Recent guidelines recommend combinations of paracetamol and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) for most surgeries. Glucocorticoids have been used for decades due to their potent anti-inflammatory and antipyretic properties. Subsequently, glucocorticoids may improve postoperative analgesia. We will perform a systematic review to assess benefits and harms of adding glucocorticoids to paracetamol and NSAIDs. We expect to uncover pros and cons of the addition of glucocorticoid to the basic standard regimen of paracetamol and NSAIDs for postoperative analgesia.

METHOD

This protocol for a systematic review was written according to the The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. We will search for trials in the following electronic databases: Medline, CENTRAL, CDSR and Embase. Two authors will independently screen trials for inclusion using Covidence, extract data and assess risk of bias using Cochrane's ROB 2 tool. We will analyse data using Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis. Meta-analysis will be performed according to the Cochrane guidelines and results will be validated according to the eight-step procedure suggested by Jakobsen et al We will present our primary findings in a 'summary of findings' table. We will evaluate the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

DISCUSSION

This review will aim to explore the combination of glucocorticoids together with paracetamol and NSAIDs for postoperative pain. We will attempt to provide reliable evidence regarding the role of glucocorticoids as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen in combination with paracetamol and NSAID.

[Update on PONV-What is new in prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting? : Summary of recent consensus recommendations and Cochrane reviews on prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting]

The prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative pain to enhance patient comfort has been a primary goal of anesthesiologists for the last decades; however, avoiding postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is, from a patient's perspective, a highly relevant and equally important goal of anesthesia. Recent consensus-based guidelines suggest the assessment of risk factors including female gender, postoperative opioid administration, non-smoking status, a history of PONV or motion sickness, young patient age, longer duration of anesthesia, volatile anesthetics and the type of surgery and reducing the patient's baseline risk (e.g. through the use of regional anesthesia and administration of non-opioid analgesics as part of a multimodal approach). In general, a liberal PONV prophylaxis is encouraged for adult patients and children, which should also be administered when no risk assessment is made. The basis for every adult patient should be a standard prophylaxis with two antiemetics, such as dexamethasone in combination with a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist. In patients at high risk, this should be supplemented by a third and potentially a fourth antiemetic prophylaxis with a different mechanism of action. A recently published comprehensive Cochrane meta-analysis comparing available antiemetic prophylaxes reported the highest effectiveness to prevent PONV for the NK₁ receptor antagonist aprepitant (relative risk, RR 0.26), followed by ramosetron (RR 0.44), granisetron (RR 0.45), dexamethasone (RR 0.51) and ondansetron (RR 0.55), thereby revising the dogma that every antiemetic is equally effective. Adverse events of antiemetics were generally rare and reported in less than half of the included studies, yielding a low quality of evidence for these end points. In general, combinations of different antiemetics were more effective than single prophylaxes. In children above 3 years of age, the same principles should be applied as in adults. For these patients, there is a high degree of evidence for the combination of dexamethasone and 5‑HT₃ receptor antagonists. When PONV occurs, the consensus guidelines suggest that antiemetics from a class different than given as prophylaxis should be administered. To decrease the incidence of PONV and increase the quality of care, the importance of the implementation of institutional-level guidelines and protocols as well as assessment of PONV prophylaxis and PONV incidence is highly recommended.

Protocol for implementation of the 'AusPROM' recommendations for elective surgery patients: a mixed-methods cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Incorporating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into usual care in hospitals can improve safety and quality. Gaps exist in electronic PROM (ePROM) implementation recommendations, including for elective surgery. The aims are to: (1) understand barriers and enablers to ePROM implementation in hospitals and develop Australian ePROM implementation recommendations (AusPROM); (2) test the feasibility and acceptability of the Quality of Recovery 15 item short-form (QoR-15) PROM for elective surgery patients applying the AusPROM and (3) establish if the QoR-15 PROM has concurrent validity with the EQ-5D-5L.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Phase I will identify staff barriers and facilitators for the implementation of the AusPROM recommendations using a Delphi technique. Phase II will determine QoR-15 acceptability for elective surgery patients across four pilot hospitals, using the AusPROM recommendations. For phase II, in addition to a consumer focus group, patients will complete brief acceptability surveys, incorporating the QoR-15, in the week prior to surgery, in the week following surgery and 4 weeks postsurgery. The primary endpoint will be 4 weeks postsurgery. Phase III will be the national implementation of the AusPROM (29 hospitals) and the concurrent validity of the QoR-15 and generic EQ-5D-5L. This protocol adopts the Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials Protocols guidelines.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The results will be disseminated via public forums, conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Ethics approval: La Trobe University (HEC20479).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12621000298819 (Phase I and II) and ACTRN12621000969864 (Phase III).