Anaesthesia
-
Carlisle investigated the distribution of independent variables between study groups in Fujii's fraudulent research:
"The published distributions of 28/33 variables (85%) were inconsistent with the expected distributions, such that the likelihood of their occurring ranged from 1 in 25 to less than 1 in 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 (1 in 1033), equivalent to p values of 0.04 to < 1 × 10-33 , respectively."
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
A comparison of the pelvic angle applied using lateral table tilt or a pelvic wedge at elective caesarean section.
Lateral table tilt or a pelvic wedge are commonly used to reduce inferior vena cava compression during obstetric anaesthesia in the supine position. Direct measurement of pelvic angle allows individual assessment of the effectiveness of these manoeuvres in achieving a tilted position. We observed routine practice during caesarean section after random allocation to one or other of these methods. ⋯ There was a significant difference between table angle and pelvic angle in the women with table tilt (p = 0.0003), but no significant difference in pelvic angle between the table tilt and wedge groups. Measurement of table angle does not represent pelvic position adequately in the majority of women. However, this study showed that lateral table tilt and a pelvic wedge were equally effective in producing tilt of the pelvis.
-
The Department of Health aims to eliminate the use of devices with a Luer connector firstly from 'single shot' neuraxial procedures (April 2012) and subsequently from all neuraxial and regional anaesthesia procedures (April 2013). This initiative is important for all anaesthetists, oncologists, paediatricians and neurologists. Once achieved, non-Luer connectors for neuraxial procedures will create one more barrier to wrong-route errors. ⋯ A structured evaluation of all five current connectors is urgently needed. Non-Luer connectors, however successful, will not create barriers to several type of wrong-route error and solutions to these should also be actively sought. It is clear that the initiative has been more complex than the Health Select Committee, the National Patient Safety Agency and the External Reference Group anticipated, but while there is still much work to be done, we should acknowledge that much progress has been made.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
A randomised controlled trial comparing sugammadex and neostigmine at different depths of neuromuscular blockade in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.
Deep neuromuscular blockade during certain surgical procedures may improve operating conditions. Sugammadex can be used to reverse deep neuromuscular blockade without waiting for spontaneous recovery. This randomised study compared recovery times from neuromuscular blockade induced by rocuronium 0.6 mg.kg(-1), using sugammadex 4 mg.kg(-1) administered at 1-2 post-tetanic count (deep blockade) or neostigmine 50 μg.kg(-1) (plus atropine 10 μg.kg(-1)) administered at the re-appearance of the second twitch of a train-of-four stimulation (moderate blockade), in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. ⋯ Patients receiving sugammadex recovered 3.4 times faster than patients receiving neostigmine (geometric mean (95% CI) recovery times of 2.4 (2.1-2.7) and 8.4 (7.2-9.8) min, respectively, p<0.0001). Moreover, 94% (62/66) of sugammadex-treated patients recovered within 5 min, vs 20% (13/65) of neostigmine-treated patients, despite the difference in the depth of neuromuscular blockade at the time of administration of both drugs. The ability to provide deep neuromuscular blockade throughout the procedure but still permit reversal at the end of surgery may enable improved surgical access and an enhanced visual field.