Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Recently, several retrospective studies have suggested that pulmonary complication is related with driving pressure more than any other ventilatory parameter. Thus, the authors compared driving pressure–guided ventilation with conventional protective ventilation in thoracic surgery, where lung protection is of the utmost importance. The authors hypothesized that driving pressure–guided ventilation decreases postoperative pulmonary complications more than conventional protective ventilation. Methods In this double-blind, randomized, controlled study, 292 patients scheduled for elective thoracic surgery were included in the analysis. The protective ventilation group (n = 147) received conventional protective ventilation during one-lung ventilation: tidal volume 6 ml/kg of ideal body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 5 cm H2O, and recruitment maneuver. The driving pressure group (n = 145) received the same tidal volume and recruitment, but with individualized PEEP which produces the lowest driving pressure (plateau pressure–PEEP) during one-lung ventilation. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications based on the Melbourne Group Scale (at least 4) until postoperative day 3. Results Melbourne Group Scale of at least 4 occurred in 8 of 145 patients (5.5%) in the driving pressure group, as compared with 18 of 147 (12.2%) in the protective ventilation group (P = 0.047, odds ratio 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.99). The number of patients who developed pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome was less in the driving pressure group than in the protective ventilation group (10/145 [6.9%] vs. 22/147 [15.0%], P = 0.028, odds ratio 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.92). Conclusions Application of driving pressure–guided ventilation during one-lung ventilation was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications compared with conventional protective ventilation in thoracic surgery.

Background: Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion provokes fewer stress responses than endotracheal intubation. This study aimed to evaluate the LMA Protector for assessing improvements in intraoperative hemodynamic stability and to reduce postoperative discomfort compared with endotracheal intubation in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: Fifty-six patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy while under sevoflurane-based general anesthesia were randomly allocated to airway management using LMA (LMA group) or endotracheal tube (ETT group). Heart rate, blood pressure, and peak airway pressure were recorded before and after carboperitoneum. Postoperative pain and analgesic requirements were assessed, in addition to nausea, hoarseness, dysphonia, and sore throat during the first 1 hour postoperatively and until postoperative day 1. Results: All patients underwent successful LMA or ETT placement within 2 attempts. There was no difference in highest mean (SD) peak airway pressure during carboperitoneum between the LMA and ETT groups (17.7 [2.8] mm Hg vs 19.1 [3.8] mm Hg, P = .159, respectively). The incidence of high systolic blood pressure and bradycardia was higher in the LMA group. The highest pain scores 1 hour postoperatively and on postoperative day 1 were lower in the LMA group than in the ETT group (3.9 [2.0] vs 5.4 [2.3], P = .017 and 5.6 [1.9] vs 6.7 [1.7], P = .042, respectively); requirements for analgesics were similar in the 2 groups. The incidence of nausea was lower in the LMA group than in the ETT group until postoperative day 1 (4/28 [14%] vs 12/28 [43%], P = .031, respectively). Conclusion: The LMA Protector was an effective ventilator device associated with fewer intraoperative hemodynamic stress responses and improved the quality of early recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

No abstract

No abstract

Protective ventilation is a prevailing ventilatory strategy these days and is comprised of small tidal volume, limited inspiratory pressure, and application of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). However, several retrospective studies recently suggested that tidal volume, inspiratory pressure, and PEEP are not related to patient outcomes, or only related when they influence the driving pressure. Therefore, this review introduces the concept of driving pressure and looks into the possibility of driving pressure-guided ventilation as a new ventilatory strategy, especially in thoracic surgery where postoperative pulmonary complications are common, and thus, lung protection is of utmost importance.

No abstract

Corticosteroids have been empirically administered to reduce the rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after esophagectomy. However, their efficacy remains controversial, and corticosteroids may increase the risk of graft dehiscence and infection, which are major concerns after esophagectomy. Therefore, we compared the incidence of composite complications (ARDS, graft dehiscence and infection) after esophagectomy between patients who received a preventive administration of corticosteroids and those who did not. All patients who underwent esophagectomy from 2010 to 2015 at a tertiary care university hospital were reviewed retrospectively ( n = 980). Patients were divided into Steroid ( n = 120) and Control ( n = 860) groups based on the preventive administration of 100 mg hydrocortisone during surgery. The primary endpoint was the incidence of composite complications. The incidence of composite complications was not different between the Control and Steroid groups (17.4% vs. 21.7% respectively; P = 0.26). The incidence rates of complications in each category were not different between the Control and Steroid groups: ARDS (3.8% vs. 5.0%; P = 0.46), graft dehiscence (4.8% vs. 6.7%; P = 0.37), and infection (12.8% vs. 15.8%; P = 0.36). Propensity score matching revealed that composite complications (20.0% vs. 21.7%; P = 0.75), ARDS (4.3% vs. 5.2%; P = 0.76) and infection (16.5% vs. 15.7%; P = 0.86) were not different between the Control and Steroid group, but the incidence of graft dehiscence was higher in the Steroid group than in the Control group (0.9% vs. 7.0%; P = 0.0175). In conclusions, the preventive use of corticosteroids did not reduce the incidence of ARDS, but may be related to an increased incidence of graft dehiscence. Therefore, routine administration of corticosteroids to prevent ARDS is not recommended in esophagectomy.

Background: Propofol is considered to protect against immunosuppression and has lower inflammatory responses in the perioperative period than volatile agents. We evaluated whether the anesthetic agent is associated with cancer outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 2616 patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery under general anesthesia between 2016 and 2018 (follow-up closure: July 2021) at a single institution. Patients received propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia or sevoflurane-based inhalational anesthesia. After propensity score matching, the postoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was compared as primary outcome, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Results: After 1:2 propensity matching, 717 patients were given propofol anesthesia and 1410 patients were given sevoflurane anesthesia. In the matched cohort, preoperative NLR was not significantly different between propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia (mean (95% CI)2.3 (1.8 to 2.8) and 2.2 (1.9 to 3.2); p = 0.72). NLR was significantly lower in propofol anesthesia at postoperative day two and five (mean difference (95% CI) 0.71 (0.43 to 0.98); p = 0.000 and 0.52 (0.30 to 0.74); p = 0.000). Urinary retention showed a higher incidence after propofol anesthesia (4.9% vs. 2.6%; p = 0.008). Other postoperative complications and overall/recurrence-free survival were not different in the two groups. Discussion: Although propofol anesthesia showed lower postoperative NLR than sevoflurane anesthesia, there was no association with clinical outcomes.