SSFNB or continuous FNB (plus PCA) was found to be superior to PCA alone for postoperative analgesia for patients having total knee arthroplasty. The impact of adding a sciatic block or continuous FNB to a SSFNB needs to be studied further.

Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are routinely used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses that help inform healthcare and policy decision making. The proper reporting of RCTs is important because it acts as a proxy for health care providers and researchers to appraise the quality of the methodology, conduct and analysis of an RCT. The aims of this study are to analyse the overall quality of reporting in 23 RCTs that were used in a meta-analysis by assessing 3 key methodological items, and to determine factors associated with high quality of reporting. It is hypothesized that studies with larger sample sizes, that have funding reported, that are published in journals with a higher impact factor and that are in journals that have adopted or endorsed the CONSORT statement will be associated with better overall quality of reporting and reporting of key methodological items. Methods We systematically reviewed RCTs used within an anesthesiology related post-operative pain management meta-analysis. We included all of the 23 RCTs used, all of which were parallel design that addressed the use of femoral nerve block in improving outcomes after total knee arthroplasty. Data abstraction was done independently by two reviewers. The two main outcomes were: 1) 15 point overall quality of reporting score (OQRS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and 2) 3 point key methodological item score (KMIS) based on allocation concealment, blinding and intention-to-treat analysis. Results Twenty-three RCTs were included. The median OQRS was 9.0 (Interquartile Range = 3). A multivariable regression analysis did not show any significant association between OQRS or KMIS and our four predictor variables hypothesized to improve reporting. The direction and magnitude of our results when compared to similar studies suggest that the sample size and impact factor are associated with improved key methodological item reporting. Conclusions The quality of reporting of RCTs used within an anesthesia related meta-analysis is poor to moderate. The information gained from this study should be used by journals to register the urgency for RCTs to be clear and transparent in reporting to help make literature accessible and comparable.

No abstract

E39 RESEARCH • RECHERCHERecipient ineligibility after liver transplantation assessment: a single centre experience Background: Candidacy for liver transplantation is determined through standardized evaluation. There are limited data on the frequency and reasons for denial of transplantation after assessment; analysis may shed light on the short-term utility of the assessment. We sought to describe the frequency and reasons for ineligibility for liver transplantation among referred adults. Methods:We studied all prospectively followed recipient candidates at a single centre who were deemed unsuitable for liver transplantation after assessment. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years and older and completion of a standard liver transplantation evaluation over a 3-year period. Patients were excluded if they had a history of prior assessment or liver transplantation within the study period. Demographic and baseline clinical data and reasons for recipient ineligibility were recorded. Results:In all, 337 patients underwent their first liver transplantation evaluation during the study period; 166 (49.3%) fulfilled inclusion criteria. The mean age was 55.4 years, and 106 (63.9%) were men. The 3 most common reasons for denial of listing were patient too well (n = 82, 49.4%), medical comorbidities and/or need for medical optimization (n = 43, 25.9%) and need for addiction rehabilitation (n = 28, 16.9%). Conclusion:Ineligibility for transplantation after assessment was common, occurring in nearly half of the cohort. Most denied candidates could be identified with more discriminate screening before the resource-intensive assessment; however, the assessment likely provides unforeseen positive impacts on patient care. Contexte :Les candidats à une greffe du foie sont sélectionnés au moyen d'une éva -luation standardisée. On dispose de peu de données au sujet de la fréquence et des motifs des refus de transplantation consécutifs à cette évaluation. Une analyse pourrait faire la lumière sur l'utilité de l'évaluation à court terme. Nous avons voulu décrire la fréquence de ces refus et les raisons pour lesquelles des adultes adressés pour consultation se voient refuser la greffe.Méthodes : Nous avons étudié tous les candidats à la greffe suivis prospectivement dans 1 seul centre et à qui, après évaluation, la greffe du foie a été refusée. Les critères d'inclusion étaient l'âge de 18 ans et plus et les résultats de l'évaluation standard en vue de la greffe du foie sur une période de 3 ans. Les patients étaient exclus s'ils avaient déjà subi une évaluation ou une greffe du foie au cours de la période de l'étude. Les données démographiques et cliniques de départ, de même que les raisons de l'exclusion des candidats ont été consignées.