Aircraft accident in Brazil: Boeing vs. Legacy?

Air accidents represent a small proportion of the flights registered worldwide. Airplane collisions in the air are rare. In September of 2006, a Boeing 737-800 collided in midair with a Legacy Jet. It was the largest accident registered in the history of Brazilian aviation until that time. The present study explores aspects of press coverage of the accident. Data and information reported in the media about the accident from September 2006 to August 2007 were collected and discussed. Media coverage called attention to two unusual aspects: politicisation of the discussion, culminating in the opening of congressional inquiries, and equally the concomitance of police investigations interfering in the work of agencies responsible for the official accident investigation. Emphasis on assigning guilt and establishing penalties may close the windows of opportunity an accident had opened for discussions on the improvement of air safety. In Brazil, political imperatives and organizational pressures have interfered and the possibilities of organizational learning from the accident have been drastically curtailed.

Effectiveness and safety of endotracheal tube cuffs filled with air versus filled with alkalinized lidocaine: a randomized clinical trial

CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: Os tubos traqueais são dispositivos utilizados para manutenção da ventilação. A hiperinsuflação do balonete do tubo traqueal, causada pela difusão do óxido nitroso (N2O), pode determinar lesões traqueais, que se manifestam clinicamente como odinofagia, rouquidão e tosse. A lidocaína, quando injetada no balonete do tubo traqueal, difunde-se através de sua parede, determinando ação anestésica local na traquéia. O objetivo foi avaliar a efetividade e a segurança do balonete do tubo traqueal preenchido com ar comparado com o balonete preenchido com lidocaína, considerando os desfechos: sintomas cardiovasculatórios (HAS, taquicardia); odinofagia, tosse, rouquidão e tolerância ao tubo traqueal. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Estudo clínico prospectivo, realizado no Departamento de Anestesiologia da Faculdade de Medicina da Unesp, campus de Botucatu. MÉTODOS: A pressão do balonete do tubo traqueal foi medida, entre 50 pacientes, antes, 30, 60, 90 e 120 minutos após o início da inalação de N2O anestésico. As pacientes foram distribuídas aleatoriamente em dois grupos: Air, em que o balonete foi inflado com ar para obtenção de pressão de 20 cm H2O, e Lido, em que o balonete foi preenchido com lidocaína a 2% mais bicarbonato de sódio a 8,4% para obtenção da mesma pressão. O desconforto antes da extubação, e manifestações clínicas como dor de garganta, rouquidão e tosse foram registrados no momento da alta da unidade de cuidados pós-anestésicos, e dor de garganta e rouquidão foram avaliadas também 24 horas após a anestesia. RESULTADOS: Os valores da pressão no balonete em G2 foram significativamente menores do que os de Air em todos os tempos de estudo, a partir de 30 minutos (p < 0,001). A proporção de pacientes que reagiu ao tubo traqueal no momento da desintubação foi significantemente menor em Lido (p < 0,005). A incidência de odinofagia foi significantemente menor em Lido no primeiro dia de pós-operatório (p < 0,05). A incidência de tosse e rouquidão não diferiu entre os grupos. CONCLUSÕES: Durante ventilação artificial, empregando-se a mistura de oxigênio e N2O, a insuflação do balonete com lidocaína 2% alcalinizada impede que ocorra aumento significante da pressão no balonete e determina maior tolerância ao tubo traqueal e menor incidência de odinofagia no pós-operatório, podendo então ser considerada mais segura e com maior efetividade.

Air versus saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space

BackgroundThe success of epidural anaesthesia depends on correct identification of the epidural space. For several decades, the decision of whether to use air or physiological saline during the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space has been governed by the personal experience of the anaesthesiologist. Epidural block remains one of the main regional anaesthesia techniques. It is used for surgical anaesthesia, obstetrical analgesia, postoperative analgesia and treatment of chronic pain and as a complement to general anaesthesia. The sensation felt by the anaesthesiologist from the syringe plunger with loss of resistance is different when air is compared with saline (fluid). Frequently fluid allows a rapid change from resistance to non-resistance and increased movement of the plunger. However, the ideal technique for identification of the epidural space remains unclear.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of both air and saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space.To evaluate complications related to the air or saline injected.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) (from inception to September 2013). We applied no language restrictions. The date of the most recent search was 7 September 2013.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) on air and saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.Main resultsWe included in the review seven studies with a total of 852 participants. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally ranked as showing low risk of bias inmost domains, with the exception of one study, which did not mask participants. We were able to include data from 838 participants in the meta-analysis. We found no statistically significant differences between participants receiving air and those given saline in any of the outcomes evaluated: inability to locate the epidural space (three trials, 619 participants) (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 2.31, low-quality evidence); accidental intravascular catheter placement (two trials, 223 participants) (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.45, low-quality evidence); accidental subarachnoid catheter placement (four trials, 682 participants) (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.90, low-quality evidence); combined spinal epidural failure (two trials, 400 participants) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.18, low-quality evidence); unblocked segments (five studies, 423 participants) (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.85); and pain measured by VAS (two studies, 395 participants) (mean difference (MD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.18). With regard to adverse effects, we found no statistically significant differences between participants receiving air and those given saline in the occurrence of paraesthesias (three trials, 572 participants) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15); difficulty in advancing the catheter (two trials, 227 participants) (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.56); catheter replacement (two trials, 501 participants) (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.83); and postdural puncture headache (one trial, 110 participants) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.71).Authors' conclusionsLow-quality evidence shows that results do not differ between air and saline in terms of the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space and reduction of complications. Applicability might be compromised, as most of the results described in this review were obtained from parturient patients. This review underlines the need to conduct well-designed trials in this field.