Perioperative fluid therapy and intraoperative blood loss in children

Comparison of safety outcomes between bi-coronal and direct approaches for device removal in patients treated with distraction osteogenesis for craniosynostosis

The study aimed at comparing the safety outcomes between conventional bicoronal and direct method in device removal after cranial distraction in the treatment of craniosynostosis. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients treated with distraction osteogenesis to expand intracranial volume in the anteroposterior direction. Preoperative patient demographics, distraction protocols, and perioperative outcomes (operative time, estimated blood loss, intraoperative fluid volume, lowest hematocrit during surgery, transfusion, hospital stay, drain, postoperative complication) were collected and analyzed with the independent samples t-test. Twenty-four patients were included in the study (15 in the conventional and 9 in the direct approach group). The mean duration of surgery and intraoperative fluid volume were significantly shorter (114.56 ± 36.91 min vs. 177.20 ± 47.00 min, p = 0.003) and less (241.88 ± 194.07 ml vs. 624.00 ± 524.92 ml, p = 0.026), respectively in the direct group than in the conventional. No patients were transfused intraoperatively and admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) postoperatively in the direct group. The mean intraoperative and total transfusion volumes were significantly greater in the conventional group (p = 0.004, 0.045, respectively). There were no significant differences in other safety outcomes. No postoperative wound complications were reported. The findings of this study indicated that the direct approach for distraction device removal in children with craniosynostosis appears to be safer than the conventional approach owing to the reduced operation time, intraoperative transfusion requirements, and ICU stay.

Pediatric perioperative fluid management

Appropriate fluid management is vital for adequate tissue perfusion and balancing the internal milieu especially in perioperative settings and critically ill children. Pediatric population is heterogeneous so one formula may not suffice and hence both the quantitative and qualitative perspective of fluid management should be based on physiology and pathology of the child along with their perioperative needs. In perioperative setup, the fluid is administered to meet fluid deficits (fasting, and other daily based losses), blood losses and third space losses. Anesthetists have always followed pediatric maintenance fluid calculations based on Holiday and Segar formula; based on studies conducted on healthy children more than 70 years ago. Recently, there has been a lot of debate about this concept, especially as there are serious concerns regarding the development of complications like hyponatremia and hyperglycemia, both of which can result in neurological damage or even mortality in a sick child. This review is an attempt to provide a historical perspective and current evidence-based approach to peri-operative pediatric fluid management. We performed a PUBMED search for articles using keywords including ‘children’, ‘intravenous fluid therapy’, ‘crystalloids’, ‘colloids’, ‘fluid homeostasis’, ‘blood loss’, ‘estimation of blood loss’, ‘blood loss management’, ‘perioperative fluid ‘ to get our source articles.

To compare intraoperative goal directed fluid therapy by trans-oesophageal Doppler vis-à-vis FloTrac™ in patients undergoing living related renal transplantation-a prospective randomised controlled study

Background:

Optimal intra-operative fluid therapy in renal transplantation (RT) is essential to ensure adequate graft function while preventing fluid overload related complications. This RCT was to compare the intraoperative goal directed fluid therapy (GDFT) based either on corrected flow time (CFT), measured by trans oesophageal Doppler (TED) or on the stroke volume variation (SVV), by FloTrac in patients undergoing living donor RT.

Methods:

This prospective, randomised controlled trial (RCT) was done on 60 end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, American Society of Anaesthesiologists(ASA) grade III–IV, age 18 to 65 years of either sex, scheduled for living donor RT under general anaesthesia. They were randomly divided into two groups: TED group (n = 30) and FloTrac™ group (n = 30) and administered GDFT, based upon CFT (TED) and SVV (FloTrac™). The primary outcome was to compare the total fluid and number of fluid boluses administered intraoperatively, while the secondary outcomes were to compare any postoperative complications due to fluid overload and allograft function, assessed by serial serum creatinine levels up to 90 days postoperatively.

Results:

The mean total intra-operative fluid [3991.67 ± 856.32 vs. 3543.33 ± 1131.35, P = 0.089] and the amount of fluid administered per kg body weight per hour [13.32 ± 4.67 vs. 11.82 ± 4.76, P = 0.222] were lesser in the FloTrac compared to TED group, though not statistically significant. However, the postoperative incidence of allograft dysfunction, including rejection (P = 0.743) and acute tubular necrosis (ATN) (P = 0.999), and other complications (P = 0.643) were comparable.

Conclusions:

Both TED and FloTrac devices can be used effectively to guide GDFT in RT, However, lesser total fluid was required in the FloTrac group, which may lead to a lesser number of fluid-related postoperative complications.