Purpose of Review Effective acute pain management has evolved considerably in recent years and is a primary area of focus in attempts to defend against the opioid epidemic. Persistent postsurgical pain (PPP) has an incidence of up to 30-50% and has negative outcome of quality of life and negative burden on individuals, family, and society. The 2016 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines states that enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) forms an integral part of Perioperative Surgical Home (PSH) and is now recommended to use a multimodal opioid-sparing approach for management of postoperative pain. As such, dexmedetomidine is now being used as part of ERAS protocols along with regional nerve blocks and other medications, to create a satisfactory postoperative outcome with reduced opioid consumption in the Post anesthesia care unit (PACU). Recent Findings Dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha 2 agonist, possesses analgesic effects and has a different mechanism of action when compared with opioids. When dexmedetomidine is initiated at the end of a procedure, it has a better hemodynamic stability and pain response than ropivacaine. Dexmedetomidine can be used as an adjuvant in epidurals with local anesthetic sparing effects. Its use during nerve blocks results in reduced postoperative pain. Also, local infiltration of IV dexmedetomidine is associated with earlier discharge from PACU. Summary Perioperative use of dexmedetomidine has significantly improved postoperative outcomes when used as part of ERAS protocols. An in-depth review of the use of dexmedetomidine in ERAS protocols is presented for clinical anesthesiologists.

No abstract

No abstract

Angioembolization versus open control of traumatic pelvic hemorrhage is debated. We sought to compare outcomes between angioembolization and open internal iliac artery occlusion. A 14-year retrospective review (2004–2017) was performed at our academic Level I trauma center. All pelvic hemorrhage patients who underwent internal iliac artery angioembolization or silastic loop ligation via laparotomy were compared for outcomes. Patient demographics included vital signs, mechanism, and injury severity score (ISS). Outcomes included mortality (%), operating room visits, reoperation for hemorrhage (%), transfusion burden (units), and infection (%). A total of 163 trauma patients matched for age, ISS, mechanism, and cavitary involvement were included for analysis. Compared with silastic loop ligation (n = 51, mean ISS = 32 ± 14), patients who underwent angioembolization (n = 112, mean ISS = 30 ± 8.9) demonstrated decreased mortality (23% vs 57%, P < 0.01), made fewer operating room trips (mean = 2.2 vs 3.6 trips, P < 0.01), made fewer trips for pelvic (2.8 vs 11%, P = 0.05) and nonpelvic-related bleeding (3.6 vs 22%, P < 0.01), used fewer blood products [packed red blood cells, fresh-frozen plasma, platelets, and cryoprecipitate] ( P < 0.01 for all), and indicated a trend toward fewer infections (5.7% vs 14%, P = 0.07). Internal iliac artery angioembolization demonstrates lower mortality, lower reoperation rates, decreased transfusion burden, and a trend toward fewer infections compared with silastic loop ligation.

No abstract