National audit of anaesthesia for major abdominal surgery

A postal survey was conducted of all hospitals in Australia known to have a department of anaesthesia and an intensive care or high dependency unit. Each hospital was asked to report the anaesthetic and postoperative analgesic techniques used for the last ten cases of four common major surgical procedures-aorto-femoral bypass, repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, hemicolectomy and anterior resection of the rectum. Half of 76 hospitals sent a survey form completed and returned it. Responding hospitals were larger on average, than non-responding ones, but otherwise typical of them in terms of university affiliation and metropolitan versus rural location. For each of the procedures studied the proportion of cases in which epidural block was used intra- or postoperatively varied from 0% to 100%. Depending on the procedure, between 65% and 85% of hospitals used epidural block sometimes, with between 10% and 90% of patients in these hospitals being managed with this technique. There is wide variation in the use of epidural block, intra- and postoperatively, in Australia, variation that is unlikely to be explained by systematic differences between institutions in the patients seen or their suitability for one or other technique. This pattern of practice mirrors the lack of agreement about the proper place for epidural techniques evident in the recent literature. There is a widespread belief among clinicians that this is a question of great importance. Accordingly, we believe that anaesthetists and surgeons share an ethical responsibility to enter suitable patients in an appropriately designed randomized controlled trial in order to resolve this question.

Initial results of ultrasound screening for aneurysm of the abdominal aorta in Western Australia: relevance for endoluminal treatment of aneurysm disease

Background. Increased life expectancy in men during the last thirty years is largely due to the decrease in mortality from cardiovascular disease in the age group 29-69 yr. This change has resulted in a change in the disease profile of the population with conditions such as aneurysm of the abdominal aorta (AAA) becoming more prevalent. The advent of endoluminal treatment for AAA has encouraged prophylactic intervention and fuelled the argument to screen for the disease. The feasibility of inserting an endoluminal graft is dependent on the morphology and growth characteristics of the aneurysm. This study used data from a randomized controlled trial of ultrasound screening for AAA in men aged 65-83 yr in Western Australia for the purpose of determining the norms of the living anatomy in the pressurized infrarenal aorta. Aims. To examine (1) the diameters of the infra-renal aorta in aneurysmal and non-aneurysmal cases, (2) the implications for treatment modalities, with particular reference to endoluminal grafting, which is most dependent on normal and aneurysmal morphology, and (3) any evidence to support the notion that northern Europeans are predisposed to aneurysmal disease. Methods. Using ultrasound, a randomized control trial was established in Western Australia to assess the value of a screening program in males aged 65-83 yr, The infra-renal aorta was defined as aneurysmal if the maximum diameter was 30 mm or more. Aortic diameter was modelled both as a continuous tin mm) and as a binary outcome variable, for those men who had an infra-renal diameter of 30 mm or more. ANOVA and linear regression were used for modelling aortic diameter as a continuum, while chi-square analysis and logistic regression were used in comparing men with and without the diagnosis of AAA. Findings. By December 1998, of 19.583 men had been invited to undergo ultrasound screening for AAA, 12.203 accepted the invitation (corrected response fraction 70.8%). The prevalence of AAA increased with age from 4.8% at 65 yr to 10.8% at 80 yr (chi (2) = 77.9, df = 3, P<0.001). The median (IQR) diameter for the non-aneurysmal group was 21.4 mm (3.3 mm) and there was an increase (<chi>(2) = 76.0, df = 1, P<0.001) in the diameter of the infra-renal aorta with age. Since 27 mm is the 95th centile for the non-aneurysmal infra-renal aorta, a diameter of 30 mm or more is justified as defining an aneurysm. The risk of AAA was higher in men of Australian (OR = 1.0) and northern European origin (OR = 1.0, 95%CL: 0.9. 1.2) compared with those of Mediterranean origin (OR = 0.5, 99%CL: 0.4, 0.7). Conclusion. Although screening has not yet been shown to reduce mortality from AAA. these population-based data assist the understanding of aneurysmal disease and the further development and use of endoluminal grafts for this condition. (C) 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd on behalf of The International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery.

Is there an association between chronic lung disease and abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion?

Background: Although there is evidence demonstrating an association between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), it is not clear whether COPD predicts greater rates of expansion of established aneurysms. We sought such an association in a cohort of men with aneurysms detected in a population-based study of screening for aneurysms. Methods: In addition to regular aortic ultrasound scans, 179 men with AAA underwent full lung function testing in order to identify the presence of COPD and its subgroups, emphysema and other obstructive ventilatory defects (OVD). The rate of expansion of each aneurysm was calculated and the men were divided into 'rapid expanders' (3 mm or more per year) and 'slow expanders' (less than 3 mm per year). Any association with the presence of COPD or smoking was tested using a multivariate model. Results: Over a median follow-up period of 36 months the mean rate of aortic expansion for the cohort of 179 men was 2.1 mm/year. There was no significant difference in prevalence of COPD (68% overall) or having ever been a smoker (87% overall) between the rapid expanders and the slow expanders. Conclusions: Although there was a high prevalence of COPD among men with an AAA, there was no association between the rate of expansion of AAA and the presence of any form of this disease.

Is screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm bad for your health and well-being?

Background: The purpose of the present paper was to investigate whether screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) causes health-related quality of life to change in men or their partners. Methods: A cross-sectional case-control comparison was undertaken of men aged 65-83 years living in Perth, Western Australia, using questionnaires incorporating three validated instruments (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, EuroQol EQ-5D and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) as well as several independent questions about quality of life. The 2009 men who attended for ultrasound scans of the abdominal aorta completed a short prescreening questionnaire about their perception of their general health. Four hundred and ninety-eight men (157 with an AAA and 341 with a normal aorta) were sent two questionnaires for completion 12 months after screening, one for themselves and one for their partner, each being about the quality of life of the respondent. Results: Men with an AAA were more limited in performing physical activities than those with a normal aorta (t-test of means P = 0.04). After screening, men with an AAA were significantly less likely to have current pain or discomfort than those with a normal aorta (multivariate odds ratio: 0.5; 95% confidence interval (Cl): 0.3-0.9) and reported fewer visits to their doctor. The mean level of self-perceived general health increased for all men from before to after screening (from 63.4 to 65.4). Conclusions: Apart from physical functioning, screening was not associated with decreases in health and well-being. A high proportion of men rated their health over the year after screening as being either the same or improved, regardless of whether or not they were found to have an AAA.

Laparoscopically-assisted resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse: Ten years' experience

PURPOSE: This study has been undertaken to audit a single-center experience with laparoscopically-assisted resection rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. The clinical Outcomes and long-term results were evaluated. METHODS: The data were prospectively collected for the duration of the operation, time to passage of flatus postoperatively, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. For follow-up, patients received a questionnaire or were contacted. The data were divided into quartiles over the study period, and the differences in operating time and length of hospital stay were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Between March 1992 and October 2003, a total of 117 patients underwent laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse. The median operating time during the first quartile (representing the early experience) was 180 minutes compared with 110 minutes for the fourth quartile (Kruskal-Wallis test for operating time = 35.523, 3 df, P < 0.0001). Overall morbidity was 9 percent (ten patients), with one death (< 1 percent). One patient had a ureteric injury requiring conversion. One minor anastomotic leak Occurred, necessitating laparoscopic evacuation of a pelvic abscess. Altogether, 77 patients were available for follow-up. The median follow-up was 62 months. Eighty percent of the patients reported alleviation of their symptoms after the operation. Sixty-nine percent of the constipated patients experienced an improvement in bowel frequency. No patient had new or worsening symptoms of constipation after Surgery. Two (2.5 percent) patients had full-thickness rectal prolapse recurrence. Mucosal prolapse recurred in 14 (18 percent) patients. Anastomotic dilation was performed for stricture in five (4 percent) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopically-assisted resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse provides a favorable functional outcome and low recurrence rate. Shorter operating time is achieved with experience. The minimally invasive technique benefits should be considered when offering rectal prolapse patients a transabdominal approach for repair, and emphasis should now be on advanced training in the laparoscopic approach.

Perioperative epidural analgesia and outcome after major abdominal surgery in high-risk patients

In a primary analysis of a large recently completed randomized trial in 915 high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, we found no difference in outcome between patients receiving perioperative epidural analgesia and those receiving IV opioids, apart from the incidence of respiratory failure. Therefore, we performed a selected number of predetermined subgroup analyses to identify specific types of patients who may have derived benefit from epidural analgesia. We found no difference in outcome between epidural and control groups in subgroups at increased risk of respiratory or cardiac complications or undergoing aortic surgery, nor in a subgroup with failed epidural block (all P > 0.05). There was a small reduction in the duration of postoperative ventilation (geometric mean [SD]: control group, 0.3 [6.5] h, versus epidural group, 0.2 [4.8] h, P = 0.048). No differences were found in length of stay in intensive care or in the hospital. There was no relationship between frequency of use of epidural analgesia in routine practice outside the trial and benefit from epidural analgesia in the trial. We found no evidence that perioperative epidural analgesia significantly influences major morbidity or mortality after major abdominal surgery.

Design of the multicenter Australian study of epidural anesthesia and analgesia in major surgery: The MASTER Trial

The Multicenter Australian Study of Epidural Anesthesia and Analgesia in Major Surgery (The MASTER Trial) was designed to evaluate the possible benefit of epidural block in improving outcome in high-risk patients. The trial began in 1995 and is scheduled to reach the planned sample size of 900 during 2001. This paper describes the trial design and presents data comparing 455 patients randomized in 21 institutions in Australia, Hong Kong, and Malaysia, with 237 patients from the same hospitals who were eligible but not randomized. Nine categories of high-risk patients were defined as entry criteria for the trial. Protocols for ethical review, informed consent, randomization, clinical anesthesia and analgesia, and perioperative management were determined following extensive consultation with anesthesiologists throughout Australia. Clinical and research information was collected in participating hospitals by research staff who may not have been blind to allocation. Decisions about the presence or absence of endpoints were made primarily by a computer algorithm, supplemented by blinded clinical experts. Without unblinding the trial, comparison of eligibility criteria and incidence of endpoints between randomized and nonrandomized patients showed only small differences. We conclude that there is no strong evidence of important demographic or clinical differences between randomized and nonrandomized patients eligible for the MASTER Trial. Thus, the trial results are likely to be broadly generalizable. Control Clin Trials 2000;21:244-256 (C) Elsevier Science Inc. 2000.

Epidural anaesthesia and analgesia and outcome of major surgery: a randomised trial

Background Epidural block is widely used to manage major abdominal surgery and postoperative analgesia, but its risks. and benefits are uncertain. We compared adverse outcomes in high-risk patients managed for major surgery with epidural block or alternative analgesic regimens with general anaesthesia in a multicentre randomised trial. Methods 915 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery with one of nine defined comorbid states to identify high-risk status were randomly assigned intraoperative epidural anaesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia for 72 h with general anaesthesia (site of epidural selected to provide optimum block) or control. The primary endpoint was death at 30 days or major postsurgical morbidity. Analysis by intention to treat involved 447 patients assigned epidural and 441 control. Findings 255 patients (57.1%) in the epidural group and 268 (60.7%) in the control group had at least one morbidity endpoint or died (p=0.29). Mortality at 30 days was low in both groups (epidural 23 [5.1%], control 19 [4.3%], p=0.67). Only one of eight categories of morbid endpoints in individual systems (respiratory failure) occurred less frequently in patients managed with epidural techniques (23% vs 30%, p=0.02). Postoperative epidural analgesia was associated with lower pain scores during the first 3 postoperative days. There were no major adverse consequences of epidural-catheter insertion. Interpretation Most adverse morbid outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery are not reduced by use of combined epidural and general anaesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia. However, the improvement in analgesia, reduction in respiratory failure, and the low risk of serious adverse consequences suggest that many high-risk patients undergoing major intra-abdominal surgery will receive substantial benefit from combined general and epidural anaesthesia intraoperatively with continuing postoperative epidural analgesia.

Beware the boogie board: blunt abdominal trauma from bodyboarding

Riding waves on a bodyboard (boogie board) at the beach is popular with children. Three teenagers who sustained blunt abdominal trauma during bodyboarding are described. Two suffered lacerated livers, one a lacerated spleen. Serious blunt abdominal injuries from bodyboarding mishaps have not previously been reported. The usual method of riding a bodyboard may place the rider at risk of abdominal trauma.

The value of screening in siblings of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm

Objectives. This study aimed to determine the incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in a large group of siblings of Australian AAA patients to determine if screening in this group is justified. Methods. 1254 siblings of 400 index AAA patients were identified and offered aortic ultrasound screening. An age and sex matched control group was recruited from patients having abdominal CT scans for non-vascular indications. AAA was defined by an infrarenal aortic diameter of greater than or equal to3 cm or a ratio of the infrarenal to suprarenal aortic diameter of greater than or equal to2.0. A ratio of 1.0-1.5 was considered normal, and a ratio of >1.5 to

The management of extra-abdominal desmoid tumours

We performed a retrospective analysis of 35 cases of desmoid tumours (aggressive fibromatoses) that underwent treatment at our institutions between 1987 and 2002. The purpose was to evaluate the rate of local recurrence of desmoid tumours treated with surgical excision, to assess the impact of surgical margins on local recurrence and to define the role of radiotherapy in the treatment. Nine patients experienced a recurrence at an average of 16 months after initial treatment. Seven of the 15 patients with a less-than-wide margin had a local recurrence. Comparatively, only two of the 20 patients with a wide margin had a local recurrence. Thirty-three of the 35 patients were disease free at the last follow-up. We recommend wide excision with clear margins whenever possible. Marginal resections are appropriate when wide excision would severely compromise the function of the limb. Surgical resections and selective supplementation of adjuvant radiotherapy give excellent control rates.