Logvinov, Ilana I.

AbstractIntroductionRadiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) placement in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) carries risks related to periprocedural sedation and analgesia. To minimize these risks, we used a paravertebral block (PVB) technique for RIG placement.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients with ALS undergoing RIG placement under PVB between 2013 and 2017.ResultsNinety‐nine patients with ALS underwent RIG placement under PVB. Median (range) age was 66 (28 to 86) years, ALS Functional Rating Scale—Revised score was 27 (6 to 45), and forced vital capacity was 47% (8%–79%) at time of RIG placement. Eighty‐five (85.9%) patients underwent RIG placement as outpatients, with a mean postanesthesia care unit stay of 2.3 hours. The readmission rate was 4% at both 1 and 30 days postprocedure.DiscussionPVB for RIG placement has a low rate of adverse events and provides effective periprocedural analgesia in patients with ALS, the majority of whom can be treated as outpatients.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for easy to use, reliable neuromuscular monitors (NMMs). This multicenter, prospective, unblinded study compared the discomfort associated with neurostimulation in unmedicated healthy volunteers when using the new electromyography (EMG)-based TetraGraph and acceleromyography (AMG)-based TOF-Watch NMMs. The secondary aim was to compare the repeatability of the train-of-four (TOF) ratios (TOFRs) obtained with the 2 devices. METHODS: The TOF measurements of 135 volunteers from 3 university hospitals were analyzed (age: 38.3 ± 12 years [mean ± standard deviation [SD]]; male/female ratio = 63:72). The left or right ulnar nerve was stimulated at the wrist in TOF mode with 20, 30, 40, and 50 mA stimulating current intensities with both devices in random order. The TOF-Watch used standard electrocardiography (ECG) electrodes (Red Dot; 3M Health Care) for nerve stimulation. The stimulating surface area of 1 ECG electrode is 113 mm 2 . The piezoelectric probe was attached to the thumb, and a hand adapter was used to ensure consistency of AMG measurements. The TetraGraph uses proprietary surface strip electrodes for nerve stimulation and muscle action potential recording, whose stimulating surface area is roughly twice as big as that of standard ECG electrodes (228.5 mm 2 ). The volunteers were asked to rate the discomfort associated with neurostimulation on a 0–10 verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS) score anchored with 0 (no pain) and 10 (worst pain ever experienced). A linear mixed-effects model was used to evaluate the difference in VNRS scores between devices. P <.05 was accepted as the level of significance. RESULTS: In the linear mixed-effects model, there were no differences in VNRS scores between devices at any of the stimulating current intensities, P = .38. The median (range) VNRS scores obtained with TOF-Watch and TetraGraph devices were 2 (0–7) vs 2 (0–8) at 20 mA, 3 (1–9) vs 3 (1–9) at 30 mA, 5 (1–10) vs 5 (1–10) at 40 mA, and 5 (1–10) vs 6 (1–10) at 50 mA stimulating current intensities. The mean of the 1469 TOFRs obtained with TetraGraph was 100.43% ± 7.74% (standard error = 0.2%). Due to technical difficulties, the repeatability of the TOFRs could not be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the different size and design of the stimulating electrodes, the 2 NMMs caused the same level of discomfort in unmedicated healthy volunteers.

Gastric ultrasound is emerging as a tool that can be used to assess gastric content and volume in patients with an unknown fasting history. This information can impact the choice of anesthetic technique or the timing of surgery due to the presumed risk of aspiration. Currently, no data are available regarding the use of gastric ultrasound for patients who have had prior gastric operations, despite the increasing number of patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Our experience suggests that a patient with a prior Roux-en-Y gastric bypass may present with altered anatomy, rendering gastric ultrasound an ineffective technique to assess the volume of ingested food or liquid.

BACKGROUND: Studies of shared (patient-provider) decision making for elective surgical care have examined both the decision whether to have surgery and patients’ understanding of treatment options. We consider shared decision making applied to case scheduling, since implementation would reduce labor costs. METHODS: Study questions were presented in sequence of waiting times, starting with 4 workdays. “Assume the consultant surgeon (ie, the surgeon in charge) you met in clinic did not have time available to do your surgery within the next 4 workdays, but his/her colleague would have had time to do your surgery within the next 4 workdays. Would you have wanted to discuss with a member of the surgical team (eg, the scheduler or the surgeon) the availability of surgery with a different, equally qualified surgeon at Mayo Clinic who had time available within the next 4 workdays, on a date of your choosing?” There were 980 invited patients who underwent lung resection or cholecystectomy between 2011 and 2016; 135 respondents completed the study and 6 respondents dropped out after the study questions were displayed. RESULTS: The percentages of patients whose response to the study questions was “4 days” were 58.8% (40/68) among lung resection patients and 58.2% (39/67) among cholecystectomy patients. The 97.5% 2-sided confidence interval for the median maximum wait was 4 days to 4 days. Patients’ choices for the waiting time sufficient to discuss having another surgeon perform the procedure did not differ between procedures ( P = .91). Results were insensitive to patients’ sex, age, travel time to hospital, or number of office visits before surgery (all P ≥ .20). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that bringing up the option with the patient of changing surgeons when a colleague is available and has the operating room time to perform the procedure sooner is being respectful of most patients’ individual preferences (ie, patient-centered).