Background Despite previous reports suggesting that pressure support ventilation facilitates weaning from mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, few studies have assessed its effects on recovery from anesthesia. The authors hypothesized that pressure support ventilation during emergence from anesthesia reduces postoperative atelectasis in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery using the Trendelenburg position. Methods In this randomized controlled double-blinded trial, adult patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy or robot-assisted prostatectomy were assigned to either the pressure support (n = 50) or the control group (n = 50). During emergence (from the end of surgery to extubation), pressure support ventilation was used in the pressure support group versus intermittent manual assistance in the control group. The primary outcome was the incidence of atelectasis diagnosed by lung ultrasonography at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). The secondary outcomes were Pao2 at PACU and oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry less than 92% during 48 h postoperatively. Results Ninety-seven patients were included in the analysis. The duration of emergence was 9 min and 8 min in the pressure support and control groups, respectively. The incidence of atelectasis at PACU was lower in the pressure support group compared to that in the control group (pressure support vs. control, 16 of 48 [33%] vs. 28 of 49 [57%]; risk ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.91; P = 0.024). In the PACU, Pao2 in the pressure support group was higher than that in the control group (92 ± 26 mmHg vs. 83 ± 13 mmHg; P = 0.034). The incidence of oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry less than 92% during 48 h postoperatively was not different between the groups (9 of 48 [19%] vs. 11 of 49 [22%]; P = 0.653). There were no adverse events related to the study protocol. Conclusions The incidence of postoperative atelectasis was lower in patients undergoing either laparoscopic colectomy or robot-assisted prostatectomy who received pressure support ventilation during emergence from general anesthesia compared to those receiving intermittent manual assistance. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

BackgroundPediatric MRI sedation performed by a variety of specialists such as sedationists and anesthesiologists commonly uses propofol, which has similar effects to an ideal sedative agent for maintaining deep sedation. However, when propofol is used, adverse airway events are relatively more common than when using other sedative agents. The concomitant administration of midazolam and propofol can reduce the dose of propofol needed for adequate sedation and might also reduce the frequency of airway obstruction without affecting the patient’s recovery profile.MethodsWe reviewed the our hospital records of all pediatric MRI sedation patients aged 3 to 16 years who were sedated with either propofol alone or propofol with midazolam between December 2013 and June 2016.ResultsEight hundred ninety-seven pediatric MRI sedation patients were included (n = 897). The frequency of airway intervention was 25/356 (7.0%) in Group P and 15/541 (2.8%) in Group PM (difference in proportions: 4.2%; 95% CI: 1.4–7.6%; p = 0.002). The mean (SD) time to awake was longer in Group PM compared to Group P [21.2 (5.6) minutes vs. 23.0 (7.1) minutes; mean difference, 1.8 min; 95% CI, 0.9–2.9; p < 0.001]. The mean (SD) time to discharge was longer in Group PM compared to Group P [34.5 (6.9) minutes vs. 38.6 (9.4) minutes; mean difference, 4.0 min; 95% CI, 3.0–5.1; p < 0.001].ConclusionsThe administration of a small dose of midazolam during pediatric MRI sedation using propofol can reduce the frequency of airway complications without prolonging the clinically significant recovery profile.

Background: Open gastrectomy causes severe postoperative pain. Therefore, we investigated the opioid-sparing effect of the ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane block (ESPB) after open gastrectomy. Methods: Adult patients undergoing open gastrectomy were randomly assigned to either the ESPB group (ESPB + fentanyl based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia [IV-PCA]) or a control group (fentanyl based IV-PCA only). The primary outcome was total fentanyl equivalent consumption during the first 24 hour postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were pain intensities using a numeric rating scale at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 hour postoperatively, and the amount of fentanyl equivalent consumption during the PACU stay and at 3, 6, and 12 hour postoperatively, and the time to the first request for rescue analgesia. Results: Fifty-eight patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in total fentanyl equivalent consumption during the first 24 hour postoperatively between the two groups (P = 0.471). Pain intensities were not significantly different between the groups except during the PACU stay and 3 hour postoperatively (P < 0.001, for both). Time to the first rescue analgesia in the ward was longer in the ESPB group than the control group (P = 0.045). Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided ESPB did not decrease total fentanyl equivalent consumption during the first 24 hour after open gastrectomy. It only reduced postoperative pain intensity until 3 hour postoperatively compared with the control group. Ultrasound-guided single-shot ESPB cannot provide an efficient opioid-sparing effect after open gastrectomy.