DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from its inception until April 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All randomized control trials and observational studies comparing RA only versus GA in cancer resection surgery were included. Case report, case series and editorials were excluded.
RESULTS: Ten retrospective observational studies (n = 9708; 4567 GA vs 5141 RA) were included for qualitative and quantitative meta-analysis. In comparison to GA, RA was not significantly associated with a lower cancer recurrence rate in cancer resection surgery (odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.53, p = 0.95, certainty of evidence = very low). However, the trial sequential analysis for cancer recurrence rate was inconclusive. Our analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the RA and GA groups in the overall survival rate (odds ratio 1.51, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.51, p = 0.34, certainty of evidence = very low), time to cancer recurrence (mean difference 1.45 months, 95% CI -8.69 to 11.59, p = 0.78, certainty of evidence = very low), cancer-related mortality (odds ratio 1.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 5.62, p = 0.32, certainty of evidence = very low).
CONCLUSIONS: Given the low level of evidence and underpowered trial sequential analysis, our review neither support nor oppose that the use of RA was associated with lower incidence of cancer recurrence rate than GA in cancer resection surgery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42020163780.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a prospective cohort study on 79 paediatrics who underwent elective surgery with general anaesthesia. Parameter measures include the incidence of ED, ED risk factors, and the relationship between PAED, Watcha, Cravero score and expert assessment. The ED risk factor was analysed using univariate and multivariate analysis. The relationship between PAED, Watcha, Cravero score, and expert assessment was determined using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
RESULTS: The incidence of ED was 22.8%. All parameters examined in this study showed p < 0.05. Watcha's scoring correlates with the PAED scoring and shows the highest discrimination ability with AUC 0.741 and p < 0.05.
CONCLUSION: The incidence of ED in paediatrics is relatively high. Compared to others, Watcha score are more reliable for ED prediction. However, some demographic and perioperative factors are not the risk factor of ED.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) from its inception until April 2020.
RESULTS: Six RCTs (n = 3139 patients) were included. In comparison to the GA alone, our meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the cancer recurrence rate in patients who received the adjunctive use of RA in the routine care of GA (3 studies, n = 2380 patients; odds ratio 0.93, 95%CI 0.63-1.39, ρ = 0.73, certainty of evidence = very low). Our review also showed no significant difference in cancer-related mortality (2 studies, n = 545; odds ratio 1.20, 95%CI 0.83-1.74, ρ = 0.33, certainty of evidence = low), all-cause mortality (3 studies, n = 2653; odds ratio 0.98, 95%CI 0.69-1.39, ρ = 0.89, certainty of evidence = low) and duration of cancer-free survival (2 studies, n = 659; mean difference 0.00 years, 95%CI -0.25-0.25, ρ = 1.00, certainty of evidence = high).
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis concluded that the adjunctive use of RA in the routine care of GA did not reduce cancer recurrence rate in cancer resection surgery. However, this finding needs to be interpreted with caution due to low level of evidence, substantial heterogeneity and potential risk of bias across the included studies.
STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020171368.
AIMS: To investigate the effect of ketamine on emergence agitation in children.
METHODS: Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were systematically searched from their start date until February 2019. Randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous ketamine and placebo in children were sought. The primary outcome was the incidence of emergence agitation. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain score, duration of discharge time, and the adverse effects associated with the use of ketamine, namely postoperative nausea and vomiting, desaturation, and laryngospasm.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies (1125 patients) were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. The incidence of emergence agitation was 14.7% in the ketamine group and 33.3% in the placebo group. Children receiving ketamine had a lower incidence of emergence agitation, with an odds ratio being 0.23 (95% confidence interval: 0.11 to 0.46), certainty of evidence: low. In comparison with the placebo, ketamine group achieved a lower postoperative pain score (odds ratio: -2.42, 95% confidence interval: -4.23 to -0.62, certainty of evidence: very low) and lower pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium scale at 5 minutes after operation (odds ratio: -3.99, 95% confidence interval: -5.03 to -2.95; certainty of evidence: moderate). However, no evidence was observed in terms of incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, desaturation, and laryngospasm.
CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials, high degree of heterogeneity and low certainty of evidence limit the recommendations of ketamine for the prevention of emergence agitation in children undergoing surgery or imaging procedures. However, the use of ketamine is well-tolerated without any notable adverse effects across all the included trials.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42019131865.
CLINICAL PICTURE: A 51-year-old man had an uneventful anaesthesia lasting about 6.5 hours. Intubation was performed by a very junior medical officer and was considered difficult. He developed sore throat, chest pain, numbness of both hands and palpable crepitus around the neck postoperatively. Chest X-ray revealed diffuse subcutaneous emphysema, pneumomediastinum and possible pneumopericardium.
TREATMENT: He was treated conservatively with bed rest, oxygen, analgesia, antibiotic prophylaxis, reassurance and close monitoring.
OUTCOME: The patient made an uneventful recovery.
CONCLUSIONS: We discussed the possible causes.
METHODS: This retrospective study presents a total of 257 operations in 243 patients from 2 hospitals. A total of 130 cases were operated under LA sedation in hospital 1 and 127 cases under GA in hospital 2. Patient demographics and presenting features were similar at baseline.
RESULTS: Values are shown as LA sedation versus GA. Postoperatively, most patients recovered well in both groups with Glasgow Outcome Scale scores of 4-5 (96.2% vs. 88.2%, respectively). The postoperative morbidity was significantly increased by an odds ratio of 5.44 in the GA group compared with the LA sedation group (P = 0.005). The mortality was also significantly higher in the GA group (n = 5, 3.9%) than the LA sedation group (n = 0, 0.0%; P = 0.028). The CSDH recurrence rate was 4.6% in the LA sedation group versus 6.3% in the GA group. No intraoperative conversion from LA sedation to GA was reported.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that CSDH drainage under LA sedation is safe and efficacious, with a significantly lower risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity when compared with GA.