ObjectiveTo compare the analgesic effect of ultrasound-guided Transversus Abdominis Plane (TAP) block versus Continuous Wound Infusion (CWI) with levobupivacaine after caesarean delivery.MethodsWe recruited parturients undergoing elective caesareans for this multicenter study. Following written informed consent, they received a spinal anaesthetic without intrathecal morphine for their caesarean section. The postoperative analgesia was randomized to either a bilateral ultrasound guided TAP block (levobupivicaine = 150 mg) or a CWI through an elastomeric pump for 48 hours (levobupivacaine = 150 mg the first day and 12.5 mg/h thereafter). Every woman received regular analgesics along with oral morphine if required. The primary outcome was comparison of the 48-hour area under the curve (AUC) pain scores. Secondary outcomes included morphine consumption, adverse events, and persistent pain one month postoperatively.ResultsRecruitment of 120 women was planned but the study was prematurely terminated due to the occurrence of generalized seizures in one patient of the TAP group. By then, 36 patients with TAP and 29 with CWI had completed the study. AUC of pain at rest and during mobilization were not significantly different: 50 [22.5–80] in TAP versus 50 [27.5–130] in CWI (P = 0.4) and 190 [130–240] versus 160 [112.5–247.5] (P = 0.5), respectively. Morphine consumption (0 [0–20] mg in the TAP group and 10 [0–32.5] mg in the CWI group (P = 0.09)) and persistent pain at one month were similar in both groups (respectively 29.6% and 26.6% (P = 0.73)).ConclusionIn cases of morphine-free spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery, no difference between TAP block and CWI for postoperative analgesia was suggested. TAP block may induce seizures in this specific context. Consequently, such a technique after a caesarean section cannot be recommended.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01151943

We have evaluated the efficacy of new electric warming blankets, which meet the requirements of the international standard for perioperative electrical and thermal safety, in preventing intraoperative hypothermia. We studied 18 patients undergoing abdominal surgery, allocated to one of two groups: in the control group, there was no prevention of intraoperative hypothermia (n = 8) and in the electric blanket group, two electric blankets covered the legs and upper body (n = 10). Anaesthesia duration was similar in the two groups (mean 201 (SEM 11) min), as was ambient temperature (20.5 (0.1) degrees C). Core temperature decreased during operation by 1.5 (0.1) degrees C in the control group, but only by 0.3 (0.2) degree C in the electric blanket group (P < 0.01). Five patients shivered in the control group compared with one in the electric blanket group (P < 0.05). We conclude that cutaneous warming with electric blankets was an effective means of preventing intraoperative hypothermia during prolonged abdominal surgery.

No abstract

Desflurane, administered via a semi-closed circuit at 1 l x min(-1) fresh gas flow, maintained better haemodynamic stability in spinal surgery requiring moderate arterial hypotension than isoflurane.

The effectiveness of neostigmine 40 μg/kg for antagonism of two different levels of neuromuscular blockade, induced by a bolus dose of mivacurium 0.15 mg/kg, was studied in 45 patients. The patients were anaesthetized with thiopentone, fentanyl, nitrous oxide in oxygen, and enflurane. Neostigmine was administered at either 10% recovery of the twitch height (TH10) at the adductor pollicis muscle (n=14) or upon reappearance of the first response at the orbicularis oculi muscle (OO1) after train‐of‐four (TOF) stimulation (n= 16), the latter representing a deeper degree of neuromuscular blockade. Fifteen of the 45 patients did not receive neostigmine (control group). Neostigmine administration at OO1 rather than at TH10 at the adductor pollicis muscle caused reversal of neuromuscular blockade to occur 8 min earlier and shortened the time to reach 25% recovery of the twitch height (TH25) at the adductor pollicis muscle by about 5 min, compared with the control group. However, the time needed to reach a T4/T1 ratio ≥0.8 was similar in both the early and late neostigmine administration groups, being 9 min faster than in the control group. It can be concluded that there is no advantage in administering neostigmine at profound neuromuscular blockade to achieve clinically adequate recovery (T4/T1 ratio ≥0.8). However, the time between injection of mivacurium and TH25 may be shortened by using neostigmine at profound neuromuscular blockade, a procedure which may be useful in case of unpredictably difficult intubation, since diaphragmatic movements usually reappear at TH25.