Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intracranial hemorrhage represents a severe complication of brain arteriovenous malformation treatment. The aim of this cohort was to report the rate of hemorrhagic complications after transvenous endovascular embolization and analyze the potential angioarchitectural risk factors as well as clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS:During an 11-year period, 57 patients underwent transvenous endovascular embolization. All cases of hemorrhagic complications were identified. We analyzed the following variables: sex, age, hemorrhagic presentation, Spetzler-Martin grade, size of the AVM before the transvenous treatment, number of venous collectors, pattern of drainage, presence of dilated veins, and technical aspects. Univariate and multivariate multiple regression analyses were performed to evaluate the potential risk factors for procedure-related hemorrhagic complications.RESULTS: Hemorrhagic complications (either intraprocedural or periprocedural) unrelated to a perforation due to micronavigation occurred in 8 (14.0%) procedures. Significant (mRS . 2) and persistent neurologic deficits were present in 2 (3.5%) patients at 6month control. Larger nidi, especially .3 cm (P ¼ .03), and a larger number of venous collectors have shown a statistically significant correlation with hemorrhagic complications. Only the number of venous collectors was identified as an independent predictor of hemorrhagic complications in the multivariate analysis (OR, 8.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-58.2) (P ¼ .006).CONCLUSIONS: Larger nidus sizes and an increased number of venous collectors may increase the risk of hemorrhagic complications when implementing transvenous endovascular treatment of AVMs. The technique is effective and promising, especially with small nidi and single venous collectors.

BackgroundThe technique of endovascular transvenous embolization for brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) has emerged in the last 8 years as a very promising therapeutic alternative for otherwise incurable cases. Selective temporary flow arrest during transvenous endovascular embolization (TFATVE) is a novel adaptation of our previously described transvenous approach, which employs hyper-compliant balloons intra-arterially for the selective occlusion of arterial feeders during ethylene vinyl copolymer (EVOH) injection, in order to reduce intra-nidal pressure and increase nidi occlusion rates.MethodsWe performed a feasibility study of the TFATVE technique between January 2016 and April 2020. Consecutive patients were included. All patients had at least one axial brain MRI or CT in the first 48 hours following intervention, and at least one brain MRI scan within the first postoperative month, in order to detect both silent and clinically evident adverse events. Patients’ demographics, angio-architectural characteristics, total injection and procedure times, angiographic and clinical outcomes were analyzed.Results22 patients underwent TFATVE during transvenous endovascular treatment of brain AVMs. Among them, 86.4% were high Spetzler-Martin’s grade. Good clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale <2) was achieved in 95.5% of the cases, with 0% of procedure-related mortality and 4.5% of clinically significant, procedure-related morbidity. Total occlusion of the nidus was achieved in >90% of the cases at the end of the procedure and angiographic stability was achieved in all cases; 100% of the cases had angiographic cure at follow-up.ConclusionsTFATVE seems a safe and effective technique when conducted in carefully selected patients in highly specialized centers.

Lower back pain is one of the leading causes of disability in the world. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of supplementation of dexmedetomidine and neostigmine with lidocaine 1.5% and triamcinolone for epidural block in increasing the duration of analgesia among patients suffering from chronic low back pain. In this double-blind, randomized clinical trial, 33 patients with chronic low back pain were included in three groups of 11 patients for epidural blockage. Triamcinolone (40 mg/ml) was added to lidocaine 1.5% solution (2 cc/segment) for all three groups. In group N, neostigmine was used at a dose of 1 mg (mg), followed by group D (dexmedetomidine 35 μg [0.5 μg/kg]), and grou [ND (neostigmine 0.5 mg, and 35 μg dexmedetomidine, all of which were added to the triamcinolone and lidocaine solution in each group. Medications were injected into the epidural space using an interlaminar approach. Subsequently, scores of pain and duration of analgesia were recorded in questionnaires and analysed using SPSS version 23. One month after the injections, pain scores recorded in the N group were 7.6±1.4, followed by 5.88±1.2 in group D and 5.42 ±1.1 in group ND. Therefore, the pain scores were significantly higher in the neostigmine group than the other two groups (p = 0.02), but no significant difference was found between the two groups that received dexmedetomidine and a combination of dexmedetomidine + neostigmine. Three months after the injections, there was a significant difference in pain scores between the two groups (P = 0.01). Both neostigmine and dexmedetomidine were capable of reducing the pain of patients with chronic low back pain after epidural block. However, neostigmine’s impact is lower compared to dexmedetomidine. The combination of the two drugs also reduced the pain scores of the patients after the intervention.