Acute postoperative pain is one of the most common concerns during the early postoperative period in colorectal surgery. Opioids still represent the cornerstone of postoperative pain management, yet they often result in significant side effects such as nausea and/or vomiting, sedation, urinary retention, delayed recovery of colonic motility, respiratory depression, and postoperative ileus. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block has been widely used for postoperative analgesia in various abdominal surgeries. The primary aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the postoperative opioid requirements of patients in the TAP block group and the control group (placebo). The secondary aims included evaluation of the efficacy of TAP blocks in postoperative pain management, the measurement of time to first request for opioids, the measurement of length of hospital stay (LoS), and the documentation of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting. We searched for articles reporting the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the application of TAP block in colorectal surgery published before September 2021. Eight RCTs involving 615 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Seven articles reported the results of TAP blocks in laparoscopic surgery and eight in both laparoscopic and open surgery. The need for opioids and the intensity of pain at rest within 24 h after laparoscopic and combined (laparoscopic and open) surgeries were significantly lower in the TAP block group compared with the “no block” group. The intensity of pain during coughing within 24 hours after laparoscopic surgery was significantly lower in the TAP block groups compared to the groups without block. There were no statistically significant differences between the TAP block and “no block” groups in overall (over the entire hospital stay) postoperative opioid consumption and length of hospital stay after laparoscopic surgery, as well as in postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic and combined surgeries.

BackgroundAbdominal surgery is one of the most definitive and mainstay treatment options for abdominal pathologies in clinical practice. Acute postoperative pain is a major challenge in the postoperative period. Although opioids are commonly used for analgesia after major abdominal surgeries, they can lead to side effects, such as nausea and vomiting, constipation, pruritus, and life-threatening respiratory depression. Regional anesthetic techniques are commonly used to prevent or minimize these side effects. The objective of this meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and standard medical (no block) pain management after major abdominal surgeries.MethodsWe searched for articles reporting the results of randomized controlled trials on ESPB and no block in pain control published before May 2021.ResultsThe systematic search initially yielded 56 publications, 49 articles were excluded, and seven randomized clinical trials were included and analyzed. We extracted the data on postoperative opioid consumption, the efficacy of pain relief, time to the first opioid demand, and the rate of postoperative complications in the ESPB group and no block group.ConclusionsOpioid requirement and time to first analgesic request were significantly reduced in the ultrasound-guided ESPB group, but pain scores, nausea, and vomiting did not differ significantly after pooling the results of the block and no block studies. There were no reports on serious complications related to ESPB.

IntroductionNeurosurgical spinal surgeries such as micro- discectomy and complex fusion surgeries remain the leading causes of disability-adjusted life-year. Major spinal surgeries often result in severe postprocedural pain due to massive dissection of the underlying tissues. While opioids offer effective pain control, they frequently lead to side effects, such as post-operative nausea and vomiting, pruritus, constipation, and respiratory depression. ESPB was successfully used in spinal surgery as a component of a multimodal analgesic regimen and it eliminated the requirements for opioids. The primary purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare post-operative opioid consumption between ESPB and placebo.MethodsTo conduct this systematic review, we used the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)” guidelines. We conducted a search for relevant articles available in the following databases: Google Scholar, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library published up to March 2022.ResultsThe total morphine consumption within 24 h after surgery was lower in the ESPB group, the mean difference (in mg of morphine) with 95% CI is −9.27 (−11.63, −6.91). The pain intensity (0–10) at rest measured 24 h after surgery was lower in the ESPB group, the MD with 95% CI is −0.47 (−0.77, −0.17). The pain intensity during movement measured 24 h after surgery was lower in the ESPB group, the MD with 95% CI is −0.73 (−1.00, −0.47). Post-operative nausea and vomiting were significantly lower in the ESPB group, the risk ratio with 95% CI is 0.32 (0.19, 0.53).ConclusionUltrasound-guided ESPB was superior to placebo in reducing post-operative opioid consumption, pain intensity, post-operative nausea and vomiting, and prolonging the time to first rescue analgesia. There were no ESPB-related serious complications reported.

Background: Over the past few decades, critical care has seen many advancements. These advancements resulted in a considerable increase in the prevalence of chronically critically ill patients requiring prolonged medical care, which led to a massive increase in healthcare utilization. Methods: We performed a search for suitable articles using PubMed and Google Scholar from the inception of these databases to 15 May 2021. Results: Thirty-four articles were included in the review and analyzed. We described the following characteristics and problems with chronic critically ill patient management: the patient population, remote monitoring, the monitoring of physiological parameters in chronic critically ill patients, the anatomical location of sensors, the barriers to implementation, and the main technology-related issues. The main challenges in the management of these patients are (1) the shortage of caretakers, (2) the periodicity of vital function monitoring (e.g., episodic measuring of blood pressure leads to missing important critical events such as hypertension, hypotension, and hypoxia), and (3) failure to catch and manage critical physiological events at the right time, which can result in poor outcomes. Conclusions: The prevalence of critically ill patients is expected to grow. Technical solutions can greatly assist medical personnel and caregivers. Wearable devices can be used to monitor blood pressure, heart rate, pulse, respiratory rate, blood oxygen saturation, metabolism, and central nervous system function. The most important points that should be addressed in future studies are the performance of the remote monitoring systems, safety, clinical and economic outcomes, as well as the acceptance of the devices by patients, caretakers, and healthcare professionals.

Background: Perioperative disorders of neurocognitive function are a set of heterogeneous conditions, which include transient post-operative delirium (POD) and more prolonged post-operative cognitive dysfunction (POCD). Since the number of annually performed surgical procedures is growing, we should identify which type of anesthesia is safer for preserving neurocognitive function. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of general anesthesia (GA) and regional anesthesia (RA) in patients undergoing surgical procedures under general anesthesia and regional anesthesia. Material and methods: We searched for randomized controlled studies, which studied post-operative cognitive outcomes after general and regional anesthesia in the adult patient population. Results: Thirteen articles with 3633 patients: the RA group consisted of 1823 patients, and the GA group of 1810 patients, who were selected for meta-analysis. The overall effect of the model shows no difference between these two groups in terms of risk for post-operative delirium. The result is insensitive to the exclusion of any study. There was no difference between RA and GA in terms of post-operative cognitive dysfunction. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference between GA and RA in the incidence of POD. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of POCD per-protocol analysis, psychomotor/attention tests (preoperative/baseline, post-operative), memory tests (postoperatively, follow up), mini-mental state examination score 24 h postoperatively, post-operative reaction time three months postoperatively, controlled oral word association test, and digit copying test. There were no differences in the incidence of POCD in general and regional anesthesia at one week postoperatively, three months postoperatively, or total events (one week or three months). The incidence of post-operative mortality also did not differ between two groups.