No abstract

Novice resident surgeons placing thoracic pedicle screws in cadavers were able to significantly improve by the fourth cadaver to accuracy levels documented in the literature. Surgeons in training shouldpractice these skills in the laboratory before proceeding to the operating room.

ObjeCtiveTo determine whether patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than routine care in patients presenting to emergency departments with moderate to severe pain from traumatic injuries. DesignPragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.setting Five English hospitals.PartiCiPants 200 adults (71% (n=142) male), aged 18 to 75 years, who presented to the emergency department requiring intravenous opioid analgesia for the treatment of moderate to severe pain from traumatic injuries and were expected to be admitted to hospital for at least 12 hours.interventiOns PCA (n=99) or nurse titrated analgesia (treatment as usual; n=101). Main OutCOMe MeasuresThe primary outcome was total pain experienced over the 12 hour study period, derived by standardised area under the curve (scaled from 0 to 100) of each participant's hourly pain scores, captured using a visual analogue scale. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included total morphine use, percentage of study period in moderate/severe pain, percentage of study period asleep, length of hospital stay, and satisfaction with pain management. results 200 participants were included in the primary analyses. Mean total pain experienced was 47.2 (SD 21.9) for the treatment as usual group and 44.0 (24.0) for the PCA group. Adjusted analyses indicated slightly (but not statistically significantly) lower total pain experienced in the PCA group than in the routine care group (mean difference 2.7, 95% confidence interval −2.4 to 7.8). Participants allocated to PCA used more morphine in total than did participants in the treatment as usual group (mean 44.3 (23.2) v 27.2 (18.2) mg; mean difference 17.0, 11.3 to 22.7). PCA participants spent, on average, less time in moderate/severe pain (36.2% (31.0) v 44.1% (31.6)), but the difference was not statistically significant. A higher proportion of PCA participants reported being perfectly or very satisfied compared with the treatment as usual group (86% (78/91) v 76% (74/98)), but this was also not statistically significant.

The Trauma Hemostasis and Oxygenation Research (THOR) Network has developed a consensus statement on the role of permissive hypotension in remote damage control resuscitation (RDCR). A summary of the evidence on permissive hypotension follows the THOR Network position on the topic. In RDCR, the burden of time in the care of the patients suffering from noncompressible hemorrhage affects outcomes. Despite the lack of published evidence, and based on clinical experience and expertise, it is the THOR Network's opinion that the increase in prehospital time leads to an increased burden of shock, which poses a greater risk to the patient than the risk of rebleeding due to slightly increased blood pressure, especially when blood products are available as part of prehospital resuscitation.The THOR Network's consensus statement is, "In a casualty with life-threatening hemorrhage, shock should be reversed as soon as possible using a blood-based HR fluid. Whole blood is preferred to blood components. As a part of this HR, the initial systolic blood pressure target should be 100 mm Hg. In RDCR, it is vital for higher echelon care providers to receive a casualty with sufficient physiologic reserve to survive definitive surgical hemostasis and aggressive resuscitation. The combined use of blood-based resuscitation and limiting systolic blood pressure is believed to be effective in promoting hemostasis and reversing shock".