Background: Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) is recommended for postoperative systemic analgesia by the American Pain Society. As there is no efficacy advantage and a higher probability of adverse events, routine basal infusion of opioids is not recommended for opioid-naïve adults. However, the opioids referred to in postoperative pain management guidelines were mainly morphine. Nowadays, sufentanil is widely used in postoperative acute pain management. In this retrospective study, we evaluated and compared the analgesic effect, PCA use, as well as adverse events among different basal infusions with sufentanil-based postoperative PCA.Methods: The data of 322 eligible postoperative patients who received sufentanil-based IV-PCA from January 2018 to December 2019 were collected in this study. According to the settings of background infusions, patients were allocated to 3 groups: 2, 1, or 0.5 mL/hour. The primary endpoint was PCA attempts and successful delivery. We also evaluated the occurrence of adverse events associated with sufentanil-based PCA and the intensity of postoperative pain using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS).Results: PCA attempts, successful deliveries, total volume of PCA and patient NRS scores were significantly different between the 3 groups (P<0.05). Through pairwise comparison, there was only a statistical difference between the 2 mL/hour and the 0.5 mL/hour group in PCA attempts, successful deliveries, and total volumes of PCA. There were no statistical differences in adverse events between groups (P>0.05). Conclusions:We found that a smaller background infusion with sufentanil required more bolus infusions and a higher total volume of PCA within 24 hours after surgery. However, NRS scores were higher in the smaller background infusion group. Our results highlight the need for further studies to optimize doses for sufentanil IV-PCA basal infusions, which will also provide useful information to enhance the quality of pain control in the future.
Background: In this retrospective study, we evaluated the effect of two approaches of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). The first approach was pneumoperitoneum via transperitoneal (TP-RALP), and the second approach was extraperitoneal (EP-RALP) on visceral function. We aimed to provide clinical evidence for the perioperative safety with RALP and to help the surgical team choose an appropriate approach for those with hepatic or renal insufficiency.Methods: One hundred and fifty-seven eligible prostate cancer patients from 2015 to 2019 were included in this study. The postoperative related laboratory tests were compared between transperitoneal and extraperitoneal. The primary endpoint was hepatic and renal function. We also evaluate the intraoperative amount of bleeding, the length of postoperative hospital stays, the occurrence of postoperative complications (lymphatic leakage, bleeding, and infection), and the prostate-specific antigen (PSA).Results: Postoperative total bilirubin and bound bilirubin in both groups were significantly increased, while total protein, albumin, globulin, urea, and uric acid were significantly decreased (P<0.05). The total protein, albumin, and globulin are significantly higher in the EP-RALP group than in the TP-RALP group (P<0.05) postoperatively. There are no statistical differences in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and creatinine clearance (CCR) between these two groups, postoperatively.Conclusions: RALP had a significant effect on hepatic function after both TP-RALP and EP-RALP approaches, while the latter showed a lesser extent. Our results suggested that pneumoperitoneal pathways have significant effects on protein consumption. Thus, we should require a more cautious choice of surgical approaches when it comes to patients with impaired hepatic function or under risk of hepatic malfunction.
Background: Surgery is a highly technical procedure relying on high mental acuity and manual dexterity.The possibility that surgical outcomes and post-operative complications could be subject to influence by fatigue and/or circadian rhythms in surgeons has been investigated with inconsistent results. Methods:We conducted a retrospective study to assess the significance of operative timing on classifying surgical complications using an interpretable machine learning approach. We trained various linear, generative as well as tree models on the surgical record data collected from a university-affiliated, tertiary teaching hospital in China by performing parameter tuning using grid search cross-validation for optimizing the F1 score. Results:The results indicated that XGBoost was the best-performing model overall and its feature importance was shown to provide insight into possible timing-related associations with postoperative complications. We observed that the duration of surgery acted as the strongest indicator, and while surgery initiated at night (between 9 pm and 7 am) also ranked higher on the feature importance scale, it bore less significance than other factors such as the patient's age, gender, and type of surgery performed. Conclusions:We showed that surgical records could be used to demonstrate that operative timing might affect the occurrence of postoperative complications, but only in a relatively mild way while potentially entangling with multiple factors.
In the June 2020 issue of Gland Surgery, the paper "Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on postoperative hepatic and renal function" by Dr. Lee et al. (1). was published with an error in the authorship."Shuai Jang" listed should be corrected as "Shuai Jiang".The authors regret the error and all inconveniences caused.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.