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: A 40-question anonymous online questionnaire was distributed to anesthesiologists and anesthesia trainees in six countries in the Asia-Pacific (Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, India and South Korea). Participants were polled about their current practices in patient warming and temperature measurement across the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative periods. Questions were also asked regarding various individual and environmental barriers to compliance.
RESULTS: In total, 1154 valid survey responses were obtained and analyzed. 279 (24.2%) of respondents prewarm, 508 (44.0%) perform intraoperative active warming, and 486 (42.1%) perform postoperative active warming in the majority of patients. Additionally, 531 (46.0%) measure temperature preoperatively, 767 (67.5%) measure temperature intraoperatively during general anesthesia, and 953 (82.6%) measure temperature postoperatively in the majority of patients. The availability of active warming devices in the operating room (p
Discussion: The scenario is made worst if the aspiration causes acute hypoxemic respiratory failure immediately post intubation. However, in the event of desaturation, the quick decision to proceed with bronchoscopy is a challenging task to the anesthesiologist without knowing the causes.
Case presentation: We present a case of a 12-year-old boy who had a difficult-to-ventilate scenario post transferring and immediately connected to ventilator in operation theatre (OT) from portable ventilator from the emergency department. She was successfully managed by bronchoscopy.
Conclusion: Special attention should be given to the difficult-to-ventilate scenario post intubation of traumatic brain injury patient prior to operation. Prompt diagnosis and bronchoscope-assisted removal of foreign body was found to be a successful to reduce morbidity and mortality.