Subscribe: British Journal of Anaesthesia - Advance Access
Preview: British Journal of Anaesthesia - Advance Access

BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia Advance Access

Published: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 GMT

Last Build Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:47:33 GMT


Comparison of the paediatric blade of the Pentax-AWS and Ovassapian airway in fibreoptic tracheal intubation in patients with limited mouth opening and cervical spine immobilization by a semi-rigid neck collar: a randomized controlled trial


Background. We compared the performances of the paediatric blade of a Pentax Airway Scope and an Ovassapian airway in fibreoptic tracheal intubation in patients whose necks were stabilized by semi-rigid neck collars.Methods. Ninety patients were enrolled in this prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups (Group OVA-FOB and Group AWS-FOB). The time to tracheal intubation, success rate of tracheal intubation, number of optimization manoeuvres (jaw thrust), and difficulty of manipulation of the fibreoptic bronchoscope were compared between the groups.Results. The time to tracheal intubation was significantly shorter (32 vs 50 s; median difference 19 s; 95% confidence interval 14–25 s; P<0.001) and manipulation of the fibreoptic bronchoscope was significantly easier for Group AWS-FOB. Optimization manoeuvres were rarely required to facilitate fibreoptic tracheal intubation in Group AWS-FOB [jaw thrust, 0 (0%); jaw thrust with anterior neck collar removal, 1 (2%)] compared with that required in Group OVA-FOB [jaw thrust, 39 (87%); jaw thrust with anterior neck collar removal, 2 (4%)]. There was no significant difference in the success rate of tracheal intubation on the first attempt between groups [Group AWS-FOB, 45 (100%); Group OVA-FOB, 44 (98%)].Conclusions. Combined use of the paediatric blade of a Pentax Airway Scope and a fibreoptic bronchoscope enabled rapid tracheal intubation, minimizing the use of external manoeuvres of the airway, in patients with limited mouth opening and cervical spine immobilization by semi-rigid neck collars, compared with use of the Ovassapian airway and the fibreoptic bronchoscope.Clinical trial registration. NCT02827110.

Systematic review to determine which validated measurement tools can be used to assess risk of problematic analgesic use in patients with chronic pain


Misuse of prescription opioids, and other drugs prescribed for chronic pain, has increased, with major concerns about harm. This review was undertaken to identify validated measurement tools for risk assessment and monitoring of chronic non-cancer pain patients being considered for, or currently prescribed, analgesic drugs with abuse potential.Selected databases (Embase, Medline, Cochrane library/CENTRAL, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL) were systematically searched for studies evaluating tools for risk of analgesic misuse, either before, or during, analgesic therapy for chronic pain, using predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers assessed abstracts, selected full texts, extracted data and assessed quality.30 studies from 1844 met inclusion criteria, including three systematic reviews, with an additional four studies from bibliography review. The studies covered 14 tools pertaining to opioid use, with none for non-opioid analgesics.Although there is no single, clear factor identifying opioid misuse, previous substance misuse appears important. Deception, including lying to clinicians, and using drugs belonging to others are common features. Smoking history may be relevant.For predicting prescription opioid misuse, the pain medication questionnaire (PMQ) and the screener and opioid assessment for patients with pain (SOAPP) had the best evidence; both developed and validated in five separate studies (four each of acceptable quality). The current opioid misuse measure (COMM) performed best screening for current misuse, developed and validated in three studies of acceptable quality. A small number of tools may accurately predict, or identify, opioid misuse. There are none for non-opioid analgesics, where there is a potential need.

Early mobilization programme improves functional capacity after major abdominal cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial


Background: Major abdominal oncology surgery is associated with substantial postoperative loss of functional capacity, and exercise may be an effective intervention to improve outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess efficacy, feasibility and safety of a supervised postoperative exercise programme.Methods: We performed a single-blind, parallel-arm, randomized trial in patients who underwent major abdominal oncology surgery in a tertiary university hospital. Patients were randomized to an early mobilization postoperative programme based on supervised aerobic exercise, resistance and flexibility training or to standard rehabilitation care. The primary outcome was inability to walk without human assistance at postoperative day 5 or hospital discharge.Results: A total of 108 patients were enrolled, 54 into the early mobilization programme group and 54 into the standard rehabilitation care group. The incidence of the primary outcome was nine (16.7%) and 21 (38.9%), respectively (P=0.01), with an absolute risk reduction of 22.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9–38.6] and a number needed to treat of 5 (95% CI 3–17). All patients in the intervention group were able to follow at least partially the exercise programme, although the performance among them was rather heterogeneous. There were no differences between groups regarding clinical outcomes or complications related to the exercises.Conclusions: An early postoperative mobilization programme based on supervised exercises seems to be safe and feasible and improves functional capacity in patients undergoing major elective abdominal oncology surgery. However, its impact on clinical outcomes is still unclear.Clinical trial registration: NCT01693172.