METHODS: This is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent emergency laparoscopic or open repair for PPU between December 2010 and February 2014.
RESULTS: A total of 131 patients underwent emergency repair for PPU (laparoscopic repair, n=63, 48.1% vs. open repair, n=68, 51.9%). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between both groups in terms of age (p=0.434), gender (p=0.305), body mass index (p=0.180), and presence of comorbidities (p=0.214). Both groups were also comparable in their American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (p=0.769), Boey scores 0/1 (p=0.311), Mannheim Peritonitis Index > 27 (p=0.528), shock on admission (p<0.99), and the duration of symptoms > 24 hours (p=0.857). There was no significant difference in the operating time between the two groups (p=0.618). Overall, the laparoscopic group had fewer complications compared with the open group (14.3% vs. 36.8%, p=0.005). When reviewing specific complications, only the incidence of surgical site infection was statistically significant (laparoscopic 0.0% vs. open 13.2%, p=0.003). The other parameters were not statistically significant. The laparoscopic group did have a significantly shorter mean postoperative stay (p=0.008) and lower pain scores in the immediate postoperative period (p<0.05). Mortality was similar in both groups (open, 1.6% vs. laparoscopic, 2.9%, p < 0.99).
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic repair resulted in reduced wound infection rates, shorter hospitalization, and reduced postoperative pain. Our single institution series and standardized technique demonstrated lower morbidity rates in the laparoscopic group.
Methods: Thirty-two patients undergoing elective AH were randomised into Group ITM (ITM 0.2 mg + 2.5 mL 0.5% bupivacaine) (n = 16) and Group EB (0.25% bupivacaine bolus + continuous infusion of 0.1% bupivacaine-fentanyl 2 μg/mL) (n = 16).The procedure was performed before induction, and all patients subsequently received standard general anaesthesia. Both groups were provided patient-controlled analgaesia morphine (PCAM) as a backup. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, total morphine consumption, hospital stay duration, early mobilisation time and first PCAM demand time were recorded.
Results: The median VAS score was lower for ITM than for EB after the 1st hour [1.0 (IqR 1.0) versus 3.0 (IqR 3.0), P < 0.001], 8th hour [1.0 (IqR 1.0) versus 2.0 (IqR 1.0), P = 0.018] and 16th hour [1.0 (IqR1.0) versus (1.0 (IqR 1.0), P = 0.006]. The mean VAS score at the 4th hour was also lower for ITM [1.8 (SD 1.2) versus 2.9 (SD 1.4), P = 0.027]. Total morphine consumption [11.3 (SD 6.6) versus 16.5 (SD 4.8) mg, P = 0.016] and early mobilisation time [2.1 (SD 0.3) versus 2.6 (SD 0.9) days, P = 0.025] were also less for ITM. No significant differences were noted for other assessments.
Conclusions: The VAS score was better for ITM than for EB at earlier hours after surgery. However, in terms of acceptable analgaesia (VAS ≤ 3), both techniques were comparable over 24 hours.
METHODS: An online survey in English, Japanese, Chinese and Spanish was disseminated between May and November 2016 via 27 international professional bodies to >30 clinical professions chosen a priori to represent occupations involved in the management of neonatal ankyloglossia.
RESULTS: A total of 1721 responses came from nursing (51%), medical (40%), dental (6%) and allied health (4%) clinicians. Nurses (40%) and allied health (34%) professionals were more likely than doctors (8%) to consider ankyloglossia as important for lactation problems, as were western (83%) compared to Asian (52%) clinicians. Referrals to clinicians for ankyloglossia management originated mainly from parents (38%). Interprofessional referrals were not clearly defined. Frenectomies were most likely to be performed by surgeons (65%) and dentists (35%), who were also less likely to be involved in lactation support. Clinicians performing frenectomies were more likely to consider analgesia as important compared to those not performing frenectomies.
CONCLUSION: The diagnosis and treatment of ankyloglossia vary considerably around the world and between professions. Efforts to standardise management are required.
METHODS: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders.
RESULTS: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.