The Liver Transplant Society of India (LTSI) has come up with guidelines for transplant centres across the country to deal with liver transplantation during this evolving pandemic of COVID-19 infection. The guidelines are applicable to both deceased donor as well as living donor liver transplants. In view of the rapidly changing situation of COVID-19 infection in India and worldwide, these guidelines will need to be updated according to the emerging data.Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Context:The cost of anesthetic technique has three main components, i.e., disposable supplies, equipments, and anesthetic drugs. Drug budgets are an easily identifiable area for short-term savings.Aim:To assess and estimate the amount of anesthetic drug wastage in the general surgical operation room. Also, to analyze the financial implications to the hospital due to drug wastage and suggest appropriate steps to prevent or minimize this wastage.Settings and Design:A prospective observational study conducted in the general surgical operation room of a tertiary care hospital.Materials and Methods:Drug wastage was considered as the amount of drug left unutilized in the syringes/vials after completion of a case and any ampoule or vial broken while loading. An estimation of the cost of wasted drug was made.Results:Maximal wastage was associated with adrenaline and lignocaine (100% and 93.63%, respectively). The drugs which accounted for maximum wastage due to not being used after loading into a syringe were adrenaline (95.24%), succinylcholine (92.63%), lignocaine (92.51%), mephentermine (83.80%), and atropine (81.82%). The cost of wasted drugs for the study duration was 46.57% (Rs. 16,044.01) of the total cost of drugs issued/loaded (Rs. 34,449.44). Of this, the cost of wastage of propofol was maximum being 56.27% (Rs. 9028.16) of the total wastage cost, followed by rocuronium 17.80% (Rs. 2856), vecuronium 5.23% (Rs. 840), and neostigmine 4.12% (Rs. 661.50).Conclusions:Drug wastage and the ensuing financial loss can be significant during the anesthetic management of surgical cases. Propofol, rocuronium, vecuronium, and neostigmine are the drugs which contribute maximally to the total wastage cost. Judicious use of these and other drugs and appropriate prudent measures as suggested can effectively decrease this cost.

No abstract

Background and Aims:Second-generation supraglottic airway devices are widely used in current anaesthesia practice. This randomised study was undertaken to evaluate and compare laryngeal mask airway: ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA), Supreme laryngeal mask airway (SLMA) and I-gel.Methods:Eighty-four adult patients undergoing elective surgery were randomly allocated to three groups: group P (PLMA), group I (I-gel) and group S (SLMA) of 28 patients each. Insertion times, number of insertion attempts, haemodynamic response to insertion, ease of insertion of airway device and gastric tube, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) and pharyngolaryngeal morbidity were assessed. The primary outcome measure was the OLP after successful device insertion. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 18.0 software using Chi-squared/Fisher's exact test (categorical data) and analysis of variance (continuous data) tests. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results:The demographic profile of patients was comparable. OLP measured after insertion, 30 minutes later and at the end of surgery differed significantly between the three groups (P < 0.001). The mean OLP was 32.64 ± 4.14 cm·H2O in group P and 29.79 ± 3.70 cm·H2O in group S. In group I, the mean OLP after insertion was 26.71 ± 3.45 cm H2O, which increased to 27.36 ± 3.22 cm H2O at 30 minutes and to 27.50 ± 3.24 cm H2O towards the end of surgery. However, these increases were not statistically significant (P = 0.641). Device insertion time was longest for group P (P = 0.001) and gastric tube insertion time was longest for group I (P = 0.001). Haemodynamic response to insertion and pharyngolaryngeal morbidity were similar with all three devices.Conclusion:PLMA provides better sealing pressure but takes longer to insert. I-gel and SLMA have similar sealing pressures. I-gel insertion time is quicker.

No abstract

No abstract

Background:The flexible fibreoptic bronchoscope and bonfils rigid intubation endoscope are being widely used for difficult intubations.Methods:The haemodynamic response to intubation under general anaesthesia was studied in 60 adult female patients who were intubated using either flexible fibreoptic bronchoscope or bonfils rigid intubation endoscope (30 in each group). Non-invasive blood pressure and heart rate (HR) was recorded before induction of anaesthesia, immediately after induction, at the time of intubation and, thereafter, every minute for the next 5 min. The product of HR and systolic blood pressure (rate pressure product) at every point of time was also calculated.Statistical Analyses:Graph pad prism, 5.0 statistical software, independent t test and repeated measure ANOVA test were used.Results:Both bonfils rigid intubation endoscope and flexible fibreoptic bronchoscope required a similar time (less than 1 min) for orotracheal intubation. After intubation, there was a significant increase in HR, blood pressure and rate pressure product (P<0.001) in both the groups compared with the baseline and post-induction values. There was no significant difference in HR, blood pressure and rate pressure product at any of the measuring points or in their maximum values during observation between the two groups. The time required for recovery of systolic blood pressure and HR to post-induction value (±10%) was not significantly different between the two groups (more than 2 min).Conclusion:In female adults under general anaesthesia, bonfils rigid intubation endoscope and flexible fibreoptic bronchoscope require a similar time for successful orotracheal intubation and cause a similar magnitude of haemodynamic response.

Prophylactic tube jejunostomy is safe and can be performed with low procedure-related morbidity. When postoperative complications result in delayed or inadequate oral intake, nutritional requirements can be met through tube jejunostomy feeds.