In otherwise healthy children, without a syndrome, of older age (five to nine years), and diagnosed with mild to moderate OSAS by PSG, there is moderate quality evidence that adenotonsillectomy provides benefit in terms of quality of life, symptoms and behaviour as rated by caregivers and high quality evidence that this procedure is beneficial in terms of PSG parameters. At the same time, high quality evidence indicates no benefit in terms of objective measures of attention and neurocognitive performance compared with watchful waiting. Furthermore, PSG recordings of almost half of the children managed non-surgically had normalised by seven months, indicating that physicians and parents should carefully weigh the benefits and risks of adenotonsillectomy against watchful waiting in these children. This is a condition that may recover spontaneously over time.For non-syndromic children classified as having oSDB on purely clinical grounds but with negative PSG recordings, the evidence on the effects of adenotonsillectomy is of very low quality and is inconclusive.Low-quality evidence suggests that adenotonsillectomy and CPAP may be equally effective in children with Down syndrome or MPS diagnosed with mild to moderate OSAS by PSG.We are unable to present data on the benefits of adenotonsillectomy in children with oSDB aged under five, despite this being a population in whom this procedure is often performed for this purpose.

Ocular surface disease is common in the intensive care population with 20-42% of patients developing corneal epithelial defects. The ocular surface is normally protected by the ability to produce tears, to blink and to close the eyes with rest or sleep. All of these mechanisms can be disrupted in the intensive care population, increasing the risk of developing ocular surface disease. Despite the scale of the problem, eye-care protocols are commonly not instigated and documentation of eye care is often poor. This review details the risk factors for developing ocular surface disease. It also provides evidence-based guidance on protecting the eyes in vulnerable patients, identifying diseases affecting the eye in intensive care patients and delivering the best treatment to the eye. There is growing evidence that adherence to a correctly performed eye-care guideline prevents the majority of corneal problems encountered in the intensive care unit.

Conventional emergency front of neck airway training manikins mimic slim patients and are associated with unrealistic procedural ease. We have described previously a pork belly-modified manikin that more realistically simulated an obese patient's neck. In this study, we compared a novel obese-synthetic manikin (obese-synthetic manikin) with a pork belly-modified manikin (obese-meat manikin) and a conventional slim manikin (slim manikin). Thirty-three experienced anaesthetists undertook simulated emergency front of neck airway procedures on each manikin (total 99 procedures). Time to ventilation was longer on both obese manikins compared with the slim manikin (median (IQR [range]) time to intubation 159 (126-243 [73-647]) s in the obese-synthetic, 105 (72-138 [43-279]) s in the obese-meat and 58 (47-74 [30-370]) s in the slim manikin; p < 0.001 between each manikin). Cricothyroidotomy success rate was similar in the both obese manikins but lower when compared with the slim manikin (15/33 obese-synthetic vs. 14/33 obese-meat vs. 27/33 slim manikin). Participant feedback indicated performance difficulty was similar between both obese manikins, which were both more difficult than the slim manikin. The tissues of the obese-meat manikin were judged more realistic than those of either other manikin. Overall, the obese-synthetic manikin performed broadly similarly to the obese-meat manikin and was technically more difficult than the conventional slim manikin. The novel obese-synthetic manikin maybe useful for training and research in front of neck airway procedures.

No abstract

No abstract

peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO 2) before intubation, and patient comfort to the interface. Results are shown as mean (standard deviation, SD) or median (25th percentile; 75th percentile). The average BMI was 40.6 (SD, 3.79) kg m e2. The normalised