Background The addition of intrathecal morphine (ITM) to neuraxial anesthesia during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to achieve postoperative analgesia can elicit opioid-related side effects. The other methods of pain alleviation and side effect reduction, including multimodal analgesia, are challenging. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of various ITM dosages for primary unilateral TKA with periarticular injection (PI). Methods This randomized double-blind controlled trial was conducted at Vajira Hospital between April 2018 and March 2019. Patients undergoing TKA were randomized into 3 groups: no ITM (M 0 ), ITM 0.1 mg (M 1 ), and ITM 0.2 mg (M 2 ). All patients received PI. Postoperative pain scores, side effects of ITM, and orthopedic outcomes were compared. Results The trial enrolled 102 patients: M 0 (n = 32), M 1 (n = 35), and M 2 (n = 35). The postoperative pain scores and rescue analgesic consumption of groups M 1 and M 2 did not differ significantly within the first 24 hours and were significantly lower than those in group M 0 . Nausea and vomiting were observed more frequently 4 hours postoperatively in M 2 than in groups M 1 and M 0 (77%, 51%, and 6%, respectively; P < .05), which required second-line antiemetic administration (29%, 9%, and 13%, respectively; P = .09). Conclusion Postoperative pain control achieved with PI combined with ITM 0.1 mg after primary unilateral TKA was comparable to that achieved with ITM 0.2 mg. PI without ITM resulted in higher pain scores and rescue analgesic consumption. The frequency and severity of nausea and vomiting 4 hours postoperatively were also lower in patients administered 0.1 mg of ITM than those in patients administered 0.2 mg of ITM.

Background Non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (NIVATS) is increasingly performed in different types of thoracic procedures. Based on the anesthetic perspective, the outcomes of this method are limited. General anesthesia with intubation and controlled ventilation for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (IVATS) is a standard technique. The current study aimed to compare the pulmonary gas exchange between NIVATS and IVATS, with a focus on desaturation event. Methods This was a retrospective study conducted at Vajira Hospital. Data were collected from the hospital medical record database between January 9, 2019, and May 15, 2020. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to adjust the confounders by indications and contraindication between NIVATS and IVATS. The perioperative outcomes of VATS and NIVATS were compared by the regression analysis method. Results In total, 180 patients were included in the analysis. There were 98 and 82 patients in the NIVATS and IVATS groups, respectively. After a propensity score matching, the number of patients with similar characteristics decreased to 52 per group. None of the patients in both groups experienced desaturation. The lowest oxygen saturation of the NIVATS and IVATS groups did not significantly differ (96.5% vs. 99%, respectively; p = 0.185). The NIVATS group had a significantly higher ETCO2 peak than the IVATS group (43 vs. 36 mmHg, respectively; p < 0.001). According to the regression analysis, the NIVATS group had a significantly shorter anesthetic induction time (Mean difference (MD) = -5.135 min (95% CI = (- 8.878)- (-1.391)) and lower volume of blood loss (MD = -75.565 ml (95%CI = (- 131.08)—(- 20.65) but a higher intraoperative ETCO2 than the IVATS group (MD = 4.561 mmHg (95%CI = 1.852—7.269). Four patients in the NIVATS group required conversion to intubation due to difficulties encountered when using the surgical technique (7.7%, p = 0.041). Seven patients in the IVATS group, but none in the NIVATS group, presented with sore throat (13.5% vs. 0%, respectively; p = 0.006). Moreover, none of the patients in both groups experienced postoperative pneumonia, underwent reoperation, or died. Conclusions The anesthetic and surgical outcomes of NIVATS were comparable to those of IVATS.

Purpose Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a strategy used to improve perioperative outcomes and reduce complications. However, data on the efficacy of ERAS in thoracic surgery in developing countries are limited. The current study aimed to validate the benefits of ERAS among patients at a single institution. Methods This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent pulmonary resection at Vajira Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, between 2016 and 2020. To compare outcomes, patients were divided into the pre-ERAS group (2016–2018) and the post-ERAS group (2019–2020) using propensity score matching (1:2) with the year 2019 as the cutoff for introducing ERAS protocols at our institution. Results In total, 321 patients were included in the analysis (pre-ERAS group, n = 74; post-ERAS group, n = 247). After propensity score matching, 56 and 112 patients were classified under the pre- and post-ERAS groups, respectively. The post-ERAS group had significantly lower pain scores than the pre-ERAS group on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3, and a lower volume of intraoperative blood loss. In the multivariable analysis, the post-ERAS group had a shorter chest tube duration (mean difference = −1.62 days, 95% confidence interval = −2.65 to −0.31) and length of hospital stay (mean difference = −2.40 days, 95% confidence interval = −4.45 to −0.65) than the pre-ERAS group. Conclusion The use of ERAS guidelines in pulmonary resection is beneficial. Although no significant differences were observed in postoperative complication rate, intensive care unit stay, and additional cost burden between the two groups, patients in the post-ERAS group had a shorter postoperative chest tube duration, shorter hospital stays, shorter operative time, lower postoperative pain score, and lower volume of intraoperative blood loss.