Summary Pain resulting from lower leg injuries and consequent surgery can be severe. There is a range of opinion on the use of regional analgesia and its capacity to obscure the symptoms and signs of acute compartment syndrome. We offer a multi‐professional, consensus opinion based on an objective review of case reports and case series. The available literature suggested that the use of neuraxial or peripheral regional techniques that result in dense blocks of long duration that significantly exceed the duration of surgery should be avoided. The literature review also suggested that single‐shot or continuous peripheral nerve blocks using lower concentrations of local anaesthetic drugs without adjuncts are not associated with delays in diagnosis provided post‐injury and postoperative surveillance is appropriate and effective. Post‐injury and postoperative ward observations and surveillance should be able to identify the signs and symptoms of acute compartment syndrome. These observations should be made at set frequencies by healthcare staff trained in the pathology and recognition of acute compartment syndrome. The use of objective scoring charts is recommended by the Working Party. Where possible, patients at risk of acute compartment syndrome should be given a full explanation of the choice of analgesic techniques and should provide verbal consent to their chosen technique, which should be documented. Although the patient has the right to refuse any form of treatment, such as the analgesic technique offered or the surgical procedure proposed, neither the surgeon nor the anaesthetist has the right to veto a treatment recommended by the other.

Background The risk factors for surgical site infection (SSI) after HPB surgery are poorly defined. This meta‐analysis aimed to quantify the SSI rates and risk factors for SSI after pancreas and liver resection. Methods The PUBMED, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. The primary outcome measure was pooled SSI rates. The secondary outcome measure was risk factor profile determination for SSI. Results The overall rate of SSI after pancreatic and liver resection was 25.1 and 10.4%, respectively (p < 0.001). 32% of pancreaticoduodenectomies developed SSI vs 23% after distal pancreatectomy (p < 0.001). The rate of incisional SSI in the pancreatic group was 9% and organ/space SSI 16.5%. Biliary resection during liver surgery was a risk factor for SSI (25.0 vs 15.7%, p = 0.002). After liver resection, the incisional SSI rate was 7.6% and the organ space SSI rate was 10.2%. Pancreas‐specific SSI risk factors were pre‐operative biliary drainage (p < 0.001), chemotherapy (p < 0.001) and radiotherapy (p = 0.007). Liver‐specific SSI risk factors were smoking (p = 0.046), low albumin (p < 0.001) and significant blood loss (p < 0.001). The rate of organ/space SSI in patients with POPF was 47.7% and in patients without POPF 7.3% (p < 0.001). Organ/space SSI rate was 43% in patients with bile leak and 10% in those without (p < 0.001). Conclusions The risk factors for SSI following pancreatic and liver resections are distinct from each other, with higher SSI rates after pancreatic resection. Pancreaticoduodenectomy has increased risk of SSI compared to distal pancreatectomy. Similarly, biliary resections during liver surgery increase the rates of SSI.

Summary

No abstract

Background This systematic review explored the efficacy of different pain relief modalities used in the management of postoperative pain following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP) and impact on perioperative outcomes. Methods MEDLINE (OVID), Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science and CENTRAL databases were searched using PRISMA framework. Primary outcomes included pain on postoperative day 2 and 4 and respiratory morbidity. Secondary outcomes included operation time, bile leak, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatic fistula, length of stay, and opioid use. Results Five randomized controlled trials and seven retrospective cohort studies (1313 patients) were included in the systematic review. Studies compared epidural analgesia (EDA) (n = 845), patient controlled analgesia (PCA) (n = 425) and transabdominal wound catheters (TAWC) (n = 43). EDA versus PCA following PD was compared in eight studies (1004 patients) in the quantitative meta-analysis. Pain scores on day 2 (p = 0.19) and 4 (p = 0.18) and respiratory morbidity (p = 0.42) were comparable between EDA and PCA. Operative times, bile leak, delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic fistula, opioid use, and length of stay also were comparable between EDA and PCA. Pain scores and perioperative outcomes were comparable between EDA and PCA following DP and EDA and TAWC following PD. Conclusions EDA, PCA and TAWC are the most frequently used analgesic modalities in pancreatic surgery. Pain relief and other perioperative outcomes are comparable between them. Further larger randomized controlled trials are warranted to explore the relative merits of each analgesic modality on postoperative outcomes with emphasis on postoperative complications.