Optimizing Prophylactic CPAP in Patients Without Obstructive Sleep Apnoea for High-Risk Abdominal Surgeries: A Meta-regression Analysis

Comparison of the Recovery Profile between Desflurane and Sevoflurane in Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery-a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Early and clear recovery from anesthesia is the crux for preventing perioperative complications in the obese undergoing bariatric surgery. Volatile inhalation agents by virtue of high lipid solubility are expected to produce residual anesthetic effects. Prospective randomized trials comparing desflurane and sevoflurane used for anesthesia maintenance (electroencephalograph guided) during bariatric surgery published till 1st of July 2017 were searched in the medical database. Comparisons were made for surrogate markers of recovery from anesthesia that included time to eye-opening (TEo), time to tracheal-extubation (TEx), and Aldrete scores on immediately shifting to recovery (Ald-I). Five trials were included in the final analysis. Patients receiving desflurane began to respond faster by opening eyes on command (five trials) by 3.80 min (95%CI being 1.83-5.76) (random effects, P < 0.01, I² = 78.61%), and tracheal extubation was also performed earlier (four trials) by 4.97 min (95%CI being 1.34-8.59). This meant a reduction of 37% in TEo and 33.60% in TEx over sevoflurane. Ald-I scores were higher/better with desflurane by 0.52 (95%CI being 0.19-0.84) (Fixed-effects, P < 0.01, I² = 6.67%). Publication bias is likely for TEo (Egger's Test, X-intercept = - 8.57, P = 0.02). No airway-related complications were reported with desflurane's expedited recovery. Use of desflurane compared to sevoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia in morbidly obese patients allows attaining verbal contact faster, and tracheal extubating can be performed earlier without compromising safety. The benefits of better recovery extend into the immediate postoperative phase with patients being more awake upon shifting to the recovery.

Are we fully utilizing the functionalities of modern operating room ventilators?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The modern operating room ventilators have become very sophisticated and many of their features are comparable with those of an ICU ventilator. To fully utilize the functionality of modern operating room ventilators, it is important for clinicians to understand in depth the working principle of these ventilators and their functionalities.

RECENT FINDINGS

Piston ventilators have the advantages of delivering accurate tidal volume and certain flow compensation functions. Turbine ventilators have great ability of flow compensation. Ventilation modes are mainly volume-based or pressure-based. Pressure-based ventilation modes provide better leak compensation than volume-based. The integration of advanced flow generation systems and ventilation modes of the modern operating room ventilators enables clinicians to provide both invasive and noninvasive ventilation in perioperative settings. Ventilator waveforms can be used for intraoperative neuromonitoring during cervical spine surgery.

SUMMARY

The increase in number of new features of modern operating room ventilators clearly creates the opportunity for clinicians to optimize ventilatory care. However, improving the quality of ventilator care relies on a complete understanding and correct use of these new features. VIDEO ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/COAN/A47.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Chronic Pain: A Meta-analysis

Background:

In this meta-analysis, we explore the role of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a noninvasive neuromodulation technique in the treatment of chronic pain.

Methods:

Studies comparing rTMS and conventional treatment for chronic pain were searched. The comparison was made for decrease in the pain scores with and without (sham) the use of rTMS after a follow-up interval of 4–8 weeks. All reported pain scores were converted into a common scale ranging from “0” (no pain) to “10” (worst pain).

Results:

Nine trials with 183 patients in each of the groups were included in the analysis. The decrease in pain scores with rTMS was 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] being 1.46–0.78) (fixed effects, I² = 0%, P < 0.001) and in sham-rTMS was 0.28 (95% CI being 0.49–0.07) (Fixed effects, I² = 0, P = 0.01). The pooled mean drop in pain scores with rTMS therapy was higher by 0.79 (95% CI being 0.26–1.33) (fixed effects, I² = 0, P < 0.01). The duration and frequency of rTMS were highly variable across trials. Publication bias was unlikely (Egger's test, X-intercept = 0.13, P = 0.75).

Conclusions:

Use of rTMS improves the efficacy of conventional medical treatment in chronic pain patients. This treatment is not associated with any direct adverse effects. However, the duration and frequency of rTMS therapy is presently highly variable and needs standardization.