Background Opioid-sparing pain management is important for Enhanced Recovery After Surgery. Rectus sheath (RS) blocks are emerging as a promising modality for pain relief following midline laparotomy; however, there are limited prospective clinical trials testing their efficacy. The purpose of this randomized-controlled trial is to assess the morphine-sparing effect of local anesthetic (LA) boluses through RS catheters following elective gynecological oncology surgery. Method After patients' informed consent, bilateral RS catheters were placed intraoperatively in 74 females (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II) undergoing elective midline laparotomy under general anesthesia. The patients were randomized to receive 20-mL injections of either LA (0.25% bupivacaine) or normal saline (NS) postoperatively every six hours for 48 hr. Groups were compared for the co-primary outcomes of

BackgroundTo provide a platform for the dissemination of basic knowledge of pain management, a WhatsApp group was created by residents and consultants. Common clinical scenarios, resident queries, and important instructions to be followed by residents with respect to running the Acute Pain Service were discussed in the group. This study evaluates the benefits of this interaction.MethodsThis study was approved by the hospital ethics board and was registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India. Second- and third-year anesthesia residents were included in a WhatsApp group, along with consultants (board certified anesthesiologists with a special interest in pain). Pain knowledge assessment was performed pre- and post-discussion using a standard 22-point questionnaire. A feedback form, which included self-rated confidence scores (1–10, 10-most confident) and opinions about the 3-month WhatsApp discussion, was collected. Improvements in the documentation in clinical sheets post-discussion were also analyzed.ResultsA total of 38 residents were included in the WhatsApp group. An improvement in the percentage of correct answers from 69.1% (pre-discussion) to 73.6% (post-discussion) was observed (P = 0.031). Improvements in the self-rated residents' confidence levels were also noted (P < 0.05). A total of 37 residents felt that the WhatsApp-based discussion was useful. Documentation of the details of epidural blockade in clinical sheets improved from 30% to 100%.ConclusionsThe WhatsApp discussion improved residents' knowledge and confidence levels, and also resulted in improved documentation of essential details in the clinical notes. This form of education is promising and should be explored in future studies.

Background and Aims: Role of video laryngoscopes (VLs) in the management of difficult airway with single-lumen tubes (SLTs) is established. VLs provide improved glottis view but are associated with longer time to intubate (TTI). We aimed to compare the TTI for double-lumen tube (DLT) insertion using the McGrath ® MAC VL versus direct Macintosh laryngoscope (DL). Methods: Eleven senior anaesthesiologists experienced in SLT insertion, but not DLT insertion with VL participated. Seventy-four adults belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I–II posted for elective surgery needing lung isolation were randomised to both intubator and laryngoscope (VL/DL). Primary endpoint was TTI; secondary endpoints included glottic view assessed by the Cormack and Lehane (CL) grade, need for external laryngeal manipulation, ease of intubation [scored using Numeric Rating Scale (1 – easiest, 10 – most difficult)] and associated complications. TTI was compared using Student's t -test. Results: No difference was found in TTI with DL and VL [(56.6 ± 14) s vs (64.4 ± 24) s, P = 0.104] as well as ease of use of laryngoscope [median score of 2 (1–3) in both]. Use of VL resulted in more patients with CL I glottic view – 86.0% versus 58.0% ( P = 0.007). Fewer patients required external laryngeal manipulations (19% vs 47%, P = 0.013), and complications were fewer in the VL group (5% vs 24%, P = 0.023). Conclusion: TTI for DLT insertion was similar with VL and DL. However, VL was associated with better glottis visualisation, reduced need of external laryngeal manipulation and fewer complications.

Background and Aims:Acute postoperative pain is still a neglected and unresolved issue in day to day practice. Acute pain services were conceived three decades ago to form a dedicated team to monitor pain assessment and treatment as per laid down pain protocols and guidelines. The concept of acute pain service (APS) is slowly evolving in India.Material and Methods:This nationwide questionnaire survey was conducted to identify the status of postoperative pain, the prevalent treatment practices, and the prevalence of acute pain services in India. An electronic communication was sent to 4000 Indian Society of Anesthesiologists life members.Results:We received only 146 responses mainly from faculties/consultants from few corporate hospitals or medical colleges. About 68 APSs were functioning, however, 20 APS do not have any training programs and 34 have no written protocols. Anesthesiologists were involved in postoperative pain management only when epidural analgesia was employed.Conclusion:This survey found that majority of anesthesiologists agree to establish an APS, however administrative issues seem to be a major barrier.

Background and Aims:Video laryngoscopy has been recommended as an alternative during difficult conventional direct laryngoscopy using the Macintosh blade (MAC). However, successful visualisation of the larynx and tracheal intubation using some of the indirect laryngoscopes or video laryngoscopes (VL) requires hand-eye coordination. We conducted this study to determine whether non-channel VLs are easy to use for novices and whether there is any association between expertise with MAC and ease of tracheal intubation with VLs.Methods:Anaesthesiologists participating in the study were divided into three groups: Group novice to intubation (NTI), Group novice to videoscope (NVL)- experienced with MAC, novice to VLs and Group expert (EXP) experienced in all. Group NTI, NVL received prior mannequin training. VLs- Truview® and McGrath series 5 (MGR) were compared with MAC. One hundred and twenty six adult patients with normal airway were randomised to both, the intubating anaesthesiologist and laryngoscope. The time taken to intubate (TTI) and participants’ rating of the ease of use was recorded on a scale of 1–10 (10-most difficult).Results:In Group NTI, there was no difference in mean TTI with the three scopes (P = 0.938). In Group NVL, TTI was longer with the VLs than MAC (P < 0.001). In Group EXP, TTI with VL took 20 s more (P < 0.001). There was significant difference in participants’ rating of ease of use of laryngoscope in Group NVL (P = 0.001) but not in the NTI (P = 0.205), EXP (P = 0.529) groups. A high failure was seen with MGR in Group NTI and NVL.Conclusion:In Group NTI, TTI and the ease of use were similar for all scopes. Expertise with standard direct laryngoscopy does not translate to expertise with VLs. Separate training and experience with VLs is required.

No abstract

Epidural analgesia, though the gold standard of post-operative pain management for laparotomies, is associated with limitations and is contraindicated in many patients. Opioid-based pain management, which is an alternative to epidural, has been implicated in post-operative nausea, vomiting, and ileus. We report successful management of post operative pain with ultrasound guided rectus sheath (RS) catheters. RS block is a promising alternative in scenarios were epidural is contraindicated, has failed or in case of unexpected change in the surgical plan.

Introduction:Under treatment of pain is a recognized global issue. Opioid analgesic medication is the mainstay of treatment in cancer patients as per the World Health Organization (WHO) pain relief ladder, yet 50% of cancer patients worldwide do not receive adequate pain relief or are undertreated.Aim:The aim of this study was to audit the ongoing opioid-prescribing practices in our tertiary cancer pain clinic during January–June 2010.Materials & Methods:The prescribed type of opioid, dose, dosing interval, and laxatives details were analyzed.Results:Five hundred pain files were reviewed and 435 were found complete for audit. Three hundred forty-eight (80%) patients were prescribed opioids. Two hundred fifty-nine (74.4%) received weak opioids while 118 (33.9%) received strong opioids. A total of 195 (45%) patients had moderate and 184 (42%) had severe pain. Ninety-three (26.7%) patients received morphine; however, only 31.5% (58 of 184) in severe pain received morphine as per the WHO pain ladder. Only 73 of 93 (78.4%) patients received an adequate dose of morphine with an adequate dosing interval and only 27 (29%) were prescribed laxatives with morphine.Conclusion:This study shows that the under treatment of pain and under dosing of opioids coupled with improper side effect management are major issues.