No abstract

LUS, as compared to auscultation, is a superior method in assessment of lung isolation for determining position of DLT.

Our study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complications by limiting intra-cuff pressures in the LMA-Proseal.

Background and Aims:Patients undergoing ovarian cancer surgery after chemotherapy and requiring opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) are at high-risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We aimed to assess the effect of palonosetron and dexamethasone combination for these patients for prevention of PONV.Methods:This study included 2 groups and 150 patients. At the time of wound closure, patients in group A received ondansetron 8 mg intravenous (IV) + dexamethasone 4 mg IV and group B received palonosetron 0.075 mg IV + dexamethasone 4 mg IV. Postoperatively for 48 hours, group A patients received ondansetron 4 mg 8 hourly IV, group B patients received normal saline 8 hourly IV in 2 cc syringe. The primary objective was the overall incidence of PONV. Independent t-test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test were used and multivariate regression analysis was done.Results:Vomiting was significantly higher in group A (37.3%) as compared with group B (21.3%) at 0–48 hours (P = 0.031). Significantly more patients in Group A had nausea as compared with group B at 90–120 minutes (30.66% vs 18.66%, P = 0.043) and 6–24 hours (32.0% vs 22.66%, P = 0.029). PCA opioid usage in microgram was significantly higher in group A at 0–24 hours (690.53 ± 332.57 vs 576.85 ± 250.79, P = 0.024) and 0–48 hours (1126.10 ± 512.18 vs 952.13 ± 353.85, P = 0.030).Conclusion:Palonosetron with dexamethasone is more effective than ondasetron with dexamethasone for prevention of PONV in post-chemotherapy ovarian cancer surgeries receiving opioid-based patient controlled analgesia.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background Identification of risk factors for perioperative complications helps in the prognostication. We wanted to determine whether Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) and Portsmouth‐POSSUM (P‐POSSUM) can be used in patients undergoing head and neck oncosurgery. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 1265 patients after they had major head and neck oncosurgeries. Demographic, surgical and outcome data was collected. We separately analyzed data for patients who had undergone cancer surgery for oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx. We calculated the POSSUM and P‐POSSUM scores. Results POSSUM scoring system had moderate discrimination (AUC = 0.61) and good calibration (P = .36) for the entire study cohort and in the subgroup. Since there were no deaths in the entire cohort, we were not able to check predictive ability of the scores, for mortality. Conclusions We found that POSSUM had moderate discrimination and good calibration for morbidity prediction in head and neck cancer surgeries, as well as for the selected subgroup.