Prevention of catheter-related bladder discomfort – pudendal nerve block with ropivacaine versus intravenous tramadol: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundCatheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common distressing symptom complex during the postoperative period, especially after urologic procedures with a relatively greater size urinary catheter. In this study, we will enroll male patients undergoing elective prostate surgery with urinary catheterization under general anesthesia, and we will compare the efficacy of pudendal nerve block (PNB) and intravenous tramadol in CRBD prevention.Methods/designThis trial is a prospective, randomized controlled trial that will test the superiority of bilateral PNB with 0.33 % ropivacaine compared with intravenous tramadol 1.5 mg/kg for CRBD prevention. A total of 94 male patients undergoing elective prostate surgery with urinary catheterization after anesthesia induction will be randomized to receive either bilateral PNB with 0.33 % ropivacaine (the PNB group) or intravenous tramadol 1.5 mg/kg (the tramadol group) after the completion of surgery. The primary outcome is the incidence of CRBD. The most important secondary outcome is the severity of postoperative CRBD, and other secondary outcomes include Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score for postoperative pain; incidence of postoperative side effects such as postoperative nausea/vomiting, sedation, dizziness, and dry mouth; postoperative requirement for tramadol as a rescue treatment for CRBD and sufentanil as a rescue analgesic for postoperative pain; and NRS score for acceptance of an indwelling urinary catheter.DiscussionThis trial is planned to test the superiority of PNB with 0.33 % ropivacaine compared with intravenous tramadol 1.5 mg/kg. It may provide a basis for a new clinical practice for the prevention of CRBD.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02683070","term_id":"NCT02683070"}}NCT02683070. Registered on 11 February 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1575-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Memantine before Mastectomy Prevents Post-Surgery Pain: A Randomized,Blinded Clinical Trial in Surgical Patients

BackgroundNeuropathic pain following surgical treatment for breast cancer with or without chemotherapy is a clinical burden and patients frequently report cognitive, emotional and quality of life impairment. A preclinical study recently showed that memantine administered before surgery may prevent neuropathic pain development and cognitive dysfunction. With a translational approach, a clinical trial has been carried out to evaluate whether memantine administered before and after mastectomy could prevent the development of neuropathic pain, the impairment of cognition and quality of life.MethodA randomized, pilot clinical trial included 40 women undergoing mastectomy in the Oncology Department, University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France. Memantine (5 to 20 mg/day; n = 20) or placebo (n = 20) was administered for four weeks starting two weeks before surgery. The primary endpoint was pain intensity measured on a (0–10) numerical rating scale at three months post-mastectomy.ResultsData analyses were performed using mixed models and the tests were two-sided, with a type I error set at α = 0.05. Compared with placebo, patients receiving memantine showed at three months a significant difference in post-mastectomy pain intensity, less rescue analgesia and a better emotional state. An improvement of pain symptoms induced by cancer chemotherapy was also reported.ConclusionsThis study shows for the first time the beneficial effect of memantine to prevent post-mastectomy pain development and to diminish chemotherapy-induced pain symptoms. The lesser analgesic consumption and better well-being of patients for at least six months after treatment suggests that memantine could be an interesting therapeutic option to diminish the burden of breast cancer therapy.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01536314","term_id":"NCT01536314"}}NCT01536314     

The Effectiveness of Pregabalin for Post-Tonsillectomy Pain Control: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundAlthough various analgesics have been used, postoperative pain remains one of the most troublesome aspects of tonsillectomy for patients.ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of premedication using pregabalin compared with placebo (diazepam) on postoperative pain control in patients undergoing tonsillectomy.MethodsForty-eight adult patients were randomly divided into a control group and a pregabalin group. Preoperatively, patients in the control group received 4 mg diazepam orally as placebo, whereas those in the pregabalin group received 300 mg pregabalin orally. All participants were provided with patient-controlled analgesia using fentanyl for 24 hours after surgery. Postoperative pain treatment included acetaminophen 650 mg three times daily for 8 postoperative days. The primary outcome measure was the total amount of patient-controlled fentanyl consumption after tonsillectomy. Secondary outcome measures were the number of injections of ketorolac tromethamine (each 30 mg) requested by patients, pain scores, overall satisfaction scores, drowsiness, nausea, dizziness, headache, and vomiting after the surgery. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsThe total amount of fentanyl demanded decreased significantly in the pregabalin group (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the number of ketorolac tromethamine injections, pain scores, overall satisfaction scores, drowsiness, nausea, dizziness, headache, and vomiting between the two groups.ConclusionAdministration of 300 mg pregabalin prior to tonsillectomy decreases fentanyl consumption compared with that after 4 mg diazepam, without an increased incidence of adverse effects.

Trial Registration

KCT0001215     

High Spinal Anesthesia Enhances Anti-Inflammatory Responses in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery and Aortic Valve Replacement: Randomized Pilot Study

Background

Cardiac surgery induces many physiologic changes including major inflammatory and sympathetic nervous system responses. Here, we conducted a single-centre pilot study to generate hypotheses on the potential immune impact of adding high spinal anaesthesia to general anaesthesia during cardiac surgery in adults. We hypothesized that this strategy, previously shown to blunt the sympathetic response and improve pain management, could reduce the undesirable systemic inflammatory responses caused by cardiac surgery.

Methods

This prospective randomized unblinded pilot study was conducted on 14 patients undergoing cardiac surgery for coronary artery bypass grafting and/or aortic valve replacement secondary to severe aortic stenosis. The primary outcome measures examined longitudinally were serum pro-inflammatory (IL-6, IL-1b, CCL2), anti-inflammatory (IL-10, TNF-RII, IL-1Ra), acute phase protein (CRP, PTX3) and cardiovascular risk (sST2) biomarkers.

Results

The kinetics of pro- and anti-inflammatory biomarker was determined following surgery. All pro-inflammatory and acute phase reactant biomarker responses induced by surgical stress were indistinguishable in intensity and duration between control groups and those who also received high spinal anaesthesia. Conversely, IL-10 levels were markedly elevated in both intensity and duration in the group receiving high spinal anesthesia (p = 0.005).

Conclusions

This hypothesis generating pilot study suggests that high spinal anesthesia can alter the net inflammatory response that results from cardiac surgery. In appropriately selected populations, this may add incremental benefit by dampening the net systemic inflammatory response during the week following surgery. Larger population studies, powered to assess immune, physiologic and clinical outcomes in both acute and longer term settings, will be required to better assess potential benefits of incorporating high spinal anesthesia.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00348920","term_id":"NCT00348920"}}NCT00348920     

Perineural local anaesthetic catheter after major lower limb amputation trial (PLACEMENT): study protocol for a randomised controlled pilot study

Background

Pain after major lower limb amputation for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a significant problem. A perineural catheter (PNC) can be placed adjacent to the major nerve at the time of amputation with a continuous local anaesthetic infusion given postoperatively to try and reduce pain. Although low-quality observational data suggest that PNC usage reduces postoperative opioid requirements, there are limited data regarding its effect on pain. The aim of PLACEMENT is to explore the feasibility of running an effectiveness trial to assess the impact of a PNC with continuous local anaesthetic infusion, inserted at the time of amputation, on short and medium-term postoperative outcomes.

Methods/design

Fifty patients undergoing a major lower limb amputation (below or above the knee) for PAD will be recruited from two centres. Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard postoperative analgesia, with or without insertion of a PNC and local anaesthetic infusion for the first 5 postoperative days. Outcome data will be captured for the first 5 days, including pain scores (primary outcome, captured three times a day), opioid use, nausea or vomiting, itching, dizziness and complications. Patients will be contacted 2 and 6 months after surgery to assess quality of life, phantom limb pain, chronic stump pain and total healthcare costs. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with at least 10 patients (dependent on saturation of analytic themes on preliminary coding) purposefully sampled to achieve variation in site and study arm. Interviews will explore patients’ perception of post-amputation pain and its treatment, and experience of study processes. Semi-structured interviews with 5–10 health professionals will explore feasibility, fidelity, and acceptability of the study. Data from this pilot will be used to assess feasibility of, and estimate parameters to calculate the sample size for an effectiveness trial. Full ethical approval has been granted (Wales Research Ethics Committee 3 reference number 16/WA/0353).

Discussion

PLACEMENT will be the first study to explore the feasibility of running an effectiveness trial on PNC usage for postoperative pain in amputees, and provide parameters to calculate the appropriate sample size for this study.

Trial registration

ISRCTN.com, ISRCTN85710690. Registered on 21 October 2016.European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), 2016-003544-37. Registered on 24 August 2016.

     

Endovenous laser ablation versus mechanochemical ablation with ClariVein? in the management of superficial venous insufficiency (LAMA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundEndovenous thermal techniques, such as endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), are the recommended treatment for truncal varicose veins. However, a disadvantage of thermal techniques is that it requires the administration of tumescent anaesthesia, which can be uncomfortable. Non-thermal, non-tumescent techniques, such as mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) have potential benefits. MOCA combines physical damage to endothelium using a rotating wire, with the infusion of a liquid sclerosant. Preliminary experiences with MOCA showed good results and less post-procedural pain.Methods/DesignThe Laser Ablation versus Mechanochemical Ablation (LAMA) trial is a single-centre randomised controlled trial in which 140 patients will be randomly allocated to EVLA or MOCA. All patients with primary truncal superficial venous insufficiency (SVI) who meet the eligibility criteria will be invited to participate in this trial. The primary outcomes are intra-procedural pain and technical efficacy at 1 year, defined as complete occlusion of target vein segment and assessed using duplex ultrasound. Secondary outcomes are post-procedural pain, analgesia use, procedure time, clinical severity, generic and disease-specific quality of life, bruising, complications, satisfaction, cosmesis, time taken to return to daily activities and/or work, and cost-effectiveness analysis following EVLA or MOCA. Both groups will be evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis.DiscussionThe aim of the LAMA trial is to establish whether MOCA is superior to the current first-line treatment, EVLA. The two main hypotheses are that MOCA may cause less initial pain and disability allowing a more acceptable treatment with an enhanced recovery. The second hypothesis is that this may come at a cost of decreased efficacy, which may lead to increased recurrence and affect longer term quality of life, increasing the requirement for secondary procedures.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02627846","term_id":"NCT02627846"}}NCT02627846, registered 8 December 2015EudraCT number: 2015-000730-30REC ref: 15/YH/0207R&D ref: R1788     

Effects of Intra-Operative Total Intravenous Anaesthesia with Propofol versus Inhalational Anaesthesia with Sevoflurane on Post-Operative Pain in Liver Surgery: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

Background

Patients receiving total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol have been shown to experience less postoperative pain. We evaluated the post-operative analgesic effects of propofol compared with sevoflurane maintenance of anesthesia in liver surgery. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ({"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02179437","term_id":"NCT02179437"}}NCT02179437).

Methods

In this retrospective study, records of patients who underwent liver surgery between 2010 and 2013 were reviewed. Ninety-five patients anesthetized with propofol TIVA were matched with 95 patients anesthetized with sevoflurane. Numeric pain rating scale (NRS) pain scores, postoperative morphine consumption, side effects and patients’ satisfaction with pain relief were evaluated.

Results

The TIVA group reported lower NRS pain scores during coughing on postoperative days 1 and 2 but not 3 (p = 0.0127, p = 0.0472, p = 0.4556 respectively). They also consumed significantly less daily (p = 0.001 on day 1, p = 0.0231 on day 2, p = 0.0004 on day 3), accumulative (p = 0.001 on day 1, p<0.0001 on day 2 and p = 0.0064 on day 3) and total morphine (p = 0.03) when compared with the sevoflurane group. There were no differences in total duration of intravenous patient controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine use and patient satisfaction. No difference was found in reported side effects.

Conclusion

Patients anesthetized with propofol TIVA reported less pain during coughing and consumed less daily, accumulative and total morphine after liver surgery.     

Resistance exercise improves muscle strength,health status and pain intensity in fibromyalgia—a randomized controlled trial

IntroductionFibromyalgia (FM) is characterized by persistent widespread pain, increased pain sensitivity and tenderness. Muscle strength in women with FM is reduced compared to healthy women. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of a progressive resistance exercise program on muscle strength, health status, and current pain intensity in women with FM.MethodsA total of 130 women with FM (age 22–64 years, symptom duration 0–35 years) were included in this assessor-blinded randomized controlled multi-center trial examining the effects of progressive resistance group exercise compared with an active control group. A person-centred model of exercise was used to support the participants’ self-confidence for management of exercise because of known risks of activity-induced pain in FM. The intervention was performed twice a week for 15 weeks and was supervised by experienced physiotherapists. Primary outcome measure was isometric knee-extension force (Steve Strong®), secondary outcome measures were health status (FIQ total score), current pain intensity (VAS), 6MWT, isometric elbow-flexion force, hand-grip force, health related quality of life, pain disability, pain acceptance, fear avoidance beliefs, and patient global impression of change (PGIC). Outcomes were assessed at baseline and immediately after the intervention. Long-term follow up comprised the self-reported questionnaires only and was conducted after 13–18 months. Between-group and within-group differences were calculated using non-parametric statistics.ResultsSignificant improvements were found for isometric knee-extension force (p = 0.010), health status (p = 0.038), current pain intensity (p = 0.033), 6MWT (p = 0.003), isometric elbow flexion force (p = 0.02), pain disability (p = 0.005), and pain acceptance (p = 0.043) in the resistance exercise group (n = 56) when compared to the control group (n = 49). PGIC differed significantly (p = 0.001) in favor of the resistance exercise group at post-treatment examinations. No significant differences between the resistance exercise group and the active control group were found regarding change in self-reported questionnaires from baseline to 13–18 months.ConclusionsPerson-centered progressive resistance exercise was found to be a feasible mode of exercise for women with FM, improving muscle strength, health status, and current pain intensity when assessed immediately after the intervention.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identification number: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01226784","term_id":"NCT01226784"}}NCT01226784, Oct 21, 2010.     

Two parallel,pragmatic, UK multicentre,randomised controlled trials comparing surgical options for upper compartment (vault or uterine) pelvic organ prolapse (the VUE Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundOne in three women who have a prolapse operation will go on to have another operation, though not necessarily in the same compartment. Surgery can result in greater impairment of quality of life than the original prolapse itself (such as the development of new-onset urinary incontinence, or prolapse at a different site). Anterior and posterior prolapse surgery is most common (90 % of operations), but around 43 % of women also have a uterine (34 %) or vault (9 %) procedure at the same time. There is not enough evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to guide management of vault or uterine prolapse. The Vault or Uterine prolapse surgery Evaluation (VUE) study aims to assess the surgical management of upper compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and adverse events.Methods/designVUE is two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, RCTs (Uterine Trial and Vault Trial). Eligible for inclusion are women with vault or uterine prolapse: requiring a surgical procedure, suitable for randomisation and willing to be randomised. Randomisation will be computer-allocated separately for each trial, minimised on: requiring concomitant anterior and/or posterior POP surgery or not, concomitant incontinence surgery or not, age (under 60 years or 60 years and older) and surgeon. Participants will be randomly assigned, with equal probability to intervention or control arms in either the Uterine Trial or the Vault Trial. Uterine Trial participants will receive either a vaginal hysterectomy or a uterine preservation procedure. Vault Trial participants will receive either a vaginal sacrospinous fixation or an abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Participants will be followed up by postal questionnaires (6 months post surgery and 12 months post randomisation) and also reviewed in clinic 12 months post surgery. The primary outcome is the participant-reported Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS) at 12 months post randomisation.DiscussionDemonstrating the efficacy of vault and uterine prolapse surgeries is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to health care providers, both in the UK and globally.

Trial registration

Current controlled trials ISRCTN86784244 (assigned 19 October 2012), and the first subject was randomly assigned on 1 May 2013 

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1576-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Perioperative Duloxetine and Etoricoxibto improve postoperative pain after lumbar Laminectomy: a randomized,double-blind,controlled study

Background

Duloxetine, Etoricoxib and opioid are of the commonly administered drugs in Lumbar laminectomy. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of perioperative use of Duloxetine in combination with Etoricoxib on postoperative pain and opioid requirements.

Methods

One hundred twenty patients with ASA physical status were enrolled with age between 18 and 70 years. Patients were divided randomly into four groups of 30 patients: group P received placebo, group E received etoricoxib 120 mg, group D received duloxetine 60 mg and group D/E received duloxetine 60 mg capsules and etoricoxib 120 mg; 1 h before surgery and 24 h after.

Results

Neither Duloxetine nor etoricoxib individually had effect on pain with movement, while their combination revealed a significant reduction in pain scores over the entire postoperative period at rest and on movement. Etoricoxib showed a significant decrease in pain at all times at rest when compared with group P, while it showed significant pain decrease only at 0, 2 and 4 h when compared with group D. On the other hand duloxetine alone showed significant decrease in pain at rest at 24 h and 48 h when compared with group P. ConcerningMorphine requirement after 24 h.; it wassignificantly lower in the D/E group in comparison with groups P, E and D. It should be noted also that there was a significant decrease morphine requirement in both groups E and D.

Conclusion

The perioperative administration of the combination of etoricoxib and duloxetine improved analgesia and reduced opioid consumption without significant side effects.

Trial registration

ISRCTN48329522. 17 June 2017

     

Transection Speed and Impact on Perioperative Inflammatory Response – A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Stapler Hepatectomy and CUSA Resection

Background

Parenchymal transection represents a crucial step during liver surgery and many different techniques have been described so far. Stapler resection is supposed to be faster than CUSA resection. However, whether speed impacts on the inflammatory response in patients undergoing liver resection (LR) remains unclear.

Materials and Methods

This is a randomized controlled trial including 40 patients undergoing anatomical LR. Primary endpoint was transection speed (cm²/min). Secondary endpoints included the perioperative change of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, overall surgery duration, length of hospital stay, morbidity and mortality.

Results

Mean transection speed was significantly higher in patients undergoing stapler hepatectomy compared to CUSA resection (CUSA: 1 (0.4) cm²/min vs. Stapler: 10.8 (6.1) cm²/min; p<0.0001). Analyzing the impact of surgery duration on inflammatory response revealed a significant correlation between IL-6 levels measured at the end of surgery and the overall length of surgery (p<0.0001, r = 0.6188). Patients undergoing CUSA LR had significantly higher increase of interleukin-6 (IL-6) after parenchymal transection compared to patients with stapler hepatectomy in the portal and hepatic veins, respectively (p = 0.028; p = 0.044). C-reactive protein levels on the first post-operative day were significantly lower in the stapler cohort (p = 0.010). There was a trend towards a reduced overall surgery time in patients with stapler LR, especially in the subgroup of patients undergoing minor hepatectomies (p = 0.020).

Conclusions

Liver resection using staplers is fast, safe and suggests a diminished inflammatory response probably due to a decreased parenchymal transection time.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01785212     

Phone-based Intervention under Nurse Guidance after Stroke (PINGS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundHypertension is the premier modifiable risk factor for recurrent stroke. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where the stroke burden is escalating, little is known about the role of behavioral interventions in enhancing blood pressure (BP) control after stroke.Our objective is to test whether an m-Health technology-enabled, nurse-led, multilevel integrated approach is effective in improving BP control among Ghanaian stroke patients within 1 month of symptom onset compared with standard of care.MethodsThis two-arm cluster randomized controlled feasibility pilot trial will involve 60 recent-stroke survivors. Using a computer-generated sequence, patients will be randomly allocated into four clusters of 15 patients each per physician: two clusters in the intervention arm and two in the control arm. Patients in the intervention arm will receive a simple pillbox, a Blue-toothed UA-767Plus BT BP device and smartphone for monitoring and reporting BP measurements and medication intake under nurse guidance for 3 months. Tailored motivational text messages will be delivered based upon levels of adherence to the medication intake. Both groups will be followed up for 6 months to compare BP control at months 3, 6 and 9 as primary outcome measure. Physicians assessing BP control will be blinded to arms into which patients are allocated. Secondary outcome measures will include medication adherence scores and Competence and Autonomous Self-regulation Scale scores. A qualitative study is planned after follow-up to explore the lived experiences of participants in the intervention arm.DiscussionA feasible and preliminarily effective intervention would lead to a larger more definitive efficacy/effectiveness randomized controlled trial powered to look at clinical events, with the potential to reduce stroke-related morbidity and mortality in a low- to middle-income country.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02568137","term_id":"NCT02568137"}}NCT02568137, registered on 13 July 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1557-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Adductor Canal Block for Postoperative Pain Treatment after Revision Knee Arthroplasty: A Blinded,Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study

Background

Revision knee arthroplasty is assumed to be even more painful than primary knee arthroplasty and predominantly performed in chronic pain patients, which challenges postoperative pain treatment. We hypothesized that the adductor canal block, effective for pain relief after primary total knee arthroplasty, may reduce pain during knee flexion (primary endpoint: at 4 h) compared with placebo after revision total knee arthroplasty. Secondary endpoints were pain at rest, morphine consumption and morphine-related side effects.

Methods

We included patients scheduled for revision knee arthroplasty in general anesthesia into this blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Patients were allocated to an adductor canal block via a catheter with either ropivacaine or placebo; bolus of 0.75% ropivacaine/saline, followed by infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine/saline. Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT01191593.

Results

We enrolled 36 patients, of which 30 were analyzed. Mean pain scores during knee flexion at 4 h (primary endpoint) were: 52±22 versus 71±25 mm (mean difference 19, 95% CI: 1 to 37, P = 0.04), ropivacaine and placebo group respectively. When calculated as area under the curve (1–8 h/7 h) pain scores were 55±21 versus 69±21 mm during knee flexion (P = 0.11) and 39±18 versus 45±23 mm at rest (P = 0.43), ropivacaine and placebo group respectively. Groups were similar regarding morphine consumption and morphine-related side effects (P>0.05).

Conclusions

The only statistically significant difference found between groups was in the primary endpoint: pain during knee flexion at 4 h. However, due to a larger than anticipated dropout rate and heterogeneous study population, the study was underpowered.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01191593     

Nausea and Vomiting following Balanced Xenon Anesthesia Compared to Sevoflurane: A Post-Hoc Explorative Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectiveLike other inhalational anesthetics xenon seems to be associated with post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We assessed nausea incidence following balanced xenon anesthesia compared to sevoflurane, and dexamethasone for its prophylaxis in a randomized controlled trial with post-hoc explorative analysis.Methods220 subjects with elevated PONV risk (Apfel score ≥2) undergoing elective abdominal surgery were randomized to receive xenon or sevoflurane anesthesia and dexamethasone or placebo after written informed consent. 93 subjects in the xenon group and 94 subjects in the sevoflurane group completed the trial. General anesthesia was maintained with 60% xenon or 2.0% sevoflurane. Dexamethasone 4mg or placebo was administered in the first hour. Subjects were analyzed for nausea and vomiting in predefined intervals during a 24h post-anesthesia follow-up.ResultsLogistic regression, controlled for dexamethasone and anesthesia/dexamethasone interaction, showed a significant risk to develop nausea following xenon anesthesia (OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.02–5.19, p = 0.044). Early-onset nausea incidence was 46% after xenon and 35% after sevoflurane anesthesia (p = 0.138). After xenon, nausea occurred significantly earlier (p = 0.014), was more frequent and rated worse in the beginning. Dexamethasone did not markedly reduce nausea occurrence in both groups. Late-onset nausea showed no considerable difference between the groups.ConclusionIn our study setting, xenon anesthesia was associated with an elevated risk to develop nausea in sensitive subjects. Dexamethasone 4mg was not effective preventing nausea in our study. Group size or dosage might have been too small, and change of statistical analysis parameters in the post-hoc evaluation might have further contributed to a limitation of our results. Further trials will be needed to address prophylaxis of xenon-induced nausea.

Trial Registration

EU Clinical Trials EudraCT-2008-004132-20ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00793663","term_id":"NCT00793663"}}NCT00793663     

One-step partial or complete caries removal and bonding with antibacterial or traditional self-etch adhesives: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundCurrent concepts in conservative dentistry advocate minimally invasive dentistry and pulp vitality preservation. Moreover, complete removal of carious dentin in deep carious lesions often leads to pulp exposure and root canal treatment, despite the absence of irreversible pulp inflammation. For years, partial caries removal has been performed on primary teeth, but little evidence supports its effectiveness for permanent teeth. Furthermore, the recent development of new antibacterial adhesive systems could be interesting in the treatment of such lesions. The objectives of this study are to compare the effectiveness of partial versus complete carious dentin removal in deep lesions (primary objective) and the use of an antibacterial versus a traditional two-step self-etch adhesive system (main secondary objective).Methods/DesignThe DEep CAries Treatment (DECAT) study protocol is a multicenter, randomized, controlled superiority trial comparing partial versus complete caries removal followed by adhesive restoration. The minimum sample size required is 464 patients. Two successive randomizations will be performed (allocation ratio 1:1): the first for the type of excavation (partial versus complete) and the second (if no root canal treatment is required) for the type of adhesive (antibacterial versus traditional). For the two objectives, the outcome is the success of the treatment after 1 year, measured according to a composite outcome of five FDI criteria: material fracture and retention, marginal adaptation, radiographic examination (including apical pathologies), postoperative sensitivity and tooth vitality, and carious lesion recurrence.DiscussionThe study will investigate the interest of a conservative approach for the management of deep carious lesions in terms of dentin excavation and bioactive adhesive systems. The results may help practitioners achieve the most efficient restorative procedure to maintain pulp vitality and increase the restoration longevity.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02286388","term_id":"NCT02286388"}}NCT02286388. Registered in November 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1484-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Validation of Cell-Cycle Arrest Biomarkers for Acute Kidney Injury after Pediatric Cardiac Surgery

Background

The lack of early biomarkers for acute kidney injury (AKI) seriously inhibits the initiation of preventive and therapeutic measures for this syndrome in a timely manner. We tested the hypothesis that insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 (IGFBP7) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 (TIMP-2), both inducers of G1 cell cycle arrest, function as early biomarkers for AKI after congenital heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).

Methods

We prospectively studied 51 children undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. Serial urine samples were analyzed for [TIMP-2]•[IGFBP7]. The primary outcome measure was AKI defined by the pRIFLE criteria within 72 hours after surgery.

Results

12 children (24%) developed AKI within 1.67 (SE 0.3) days after surgery. Children who developed AKI after cardiac surgery had a significant higher urinary [TIMP-2]•[IGFBP7] as early as 4 h after the procedure, compared to children who did not develop AKI (mean of 1.93 ((ng/ml)²/1000) (SE 0.4) vs 0.47 ((ng/ml)²/1000) (SE 0.1), respectively; p<0.05). Urinary [TIMP-2]•[IGFBP7] 4 hours following surgery demonstrated an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.85. Sensitivity was 0.83, and specificity was 0.77 for a cutoff value of 0.70 ((ng/ml)²/1000).

Conclusions

Urinary [TIMP-2]•[IGFBP7] represent sensitive, specific, and highly predictive early biomarkers for AKI after surgery for congenital heart disease.

Trial Registration

www.germanctr.de/, DRKS00005062     

Ultrasound-Assisted Thoracic Paravertebral Block Reduces Intraoperative Opioid Requirement and Improves Analgesia after Breast Cancer Surgery: A Randomized,Controlled, Single-Center Trial

Objectives

The contribution of ultrasound-assisted thoracic paravertebral block to postoperative analgesia remains unclear. We compared the effect of a combination of ultrasound assisted-thoracic paravertebral block and propofol general anesthesia with opioid and sevoflurane general anesthesia on volatile anesthetic, propofol and opioid consumption, and postoperative pain in patients having breast cancer surgery.

Methods

Patients undergoing breast cancer surgery were randomly assigned to ultrasound-assisted paravertebral block with propofol general anesthesia (PPA group, n = 121) or fentanyl with sevoflurane general anesthesia (GA group, n = 126). Volatile anesthetic, propofol and opioid consumption, and postoperative pain intensity were compared between the groups using noninferiority and superiority tests.

Results

Patients in the PPA group required less sevoflurane than those in the GA group (median [interquartile range] of 0 [0, 0] vs. 0.4 [0.3, 0.6] minimum alveolar concentration [MAC]-hours), less intraoperative fentanyl requirements (100 [50, 100] vs. 250 [200, 300]μg,), less intense postoperative pain (median visual analog scale score 2 [1, 3.5] vs. 3 [2, 4.5]), but more propofol (median 529 [424, 672] vs. 100 [100, 130] mg). Noninferiority was detected for all four outcomes; one-tailed superiority tests for each outcome were highly significant at P<0.001 in the expected directions.

Conclusions

The combination of propofol anesthesia with ultrasound-assisted paravertebral block reduces intraoperative volatile anesthetic and opioid requirements, and results in less post operative pain in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT00418457     

Feasibility of Progressive Strength Training Implemented in the Acute Ward after Hip Fracture Surgery

Importance

Patients with a hip fracture lose more than 50% knee-extension strength in the fractured limb within one week of surgery. Hence, immediate progressive strength training following hip fracture surgery may be rational, but the feasibility unknown.

Objective

To examine the feasibility of in-hospital progressive strength training implemented in the acute ward following hip fracture surgery, based on pre-specified criteria for feasibility.

Design, Setting and Patients

A prospective cohort study conducted in an acute orthopedic hip fracture unit at a university hospital. A consecutive sample of 36 patients, 18 with a cervical and 18 with a trochanteric hip fracture (27 women and 9 men, mean (SD) age of 79.4 (8.3) years) were included between June and December 2012.

Intervention

A daily (on weekdays) program of progressive knee-extension strength training for the fractured limb, using ankle weight cuffs in 3 sets of 10 repetition maximum loadings.

Main outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the change in training load (kg) during the knee-extension strength training. The secondary outcomes were changes in hip fracture-related pain and maximal isometric knee-extension strength.

Results

The strength training was commenced at a mean of 2.4 (0.7) days after surgery. The training loads (kilograms lifted) increased from 1.6 (0.8) to 4.3 (1.7) kg over 4.3 (2.2) training sessions (P<.001). The maximal isometric knee-extension strength of the fractured limb increased from 0.37 (0.2) to 0.61 (0.3) Nm/kg (P<.001), while the average strength deficit in the fractured limb decreased from 50% to 32% (% non-fractured, P<.001). Only 3 of 212 sessions were not performed because of severe hip fracture-related pain.

Conclusion and Relevance

Progressive knee-extension strength training of the fractured limb commenced in the acute ward seems feasible, and may reduce strength asymmetry between limbs without hip pain interfering. The clinical efficacy needs confirmation in a randomized controlled design.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01616030