Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background and ObjectivesTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) is often associated with severe pain. Different regional anesthetic techniques exist, all with varying degrees of motor blockade. We hypothesized that pain relief provided by the adductor canal block (ACB) could increase functional muscle strength.MethodsWe included 50 TKA patients with severe movement-related pain; defined as having visual analog scale pain score of greater than 60 mm during active flexion of the knee. The ACB group received an ACB with ropivacaine 0.2% 30 mL and a femoral nerve block (FNB) with 30 mL saline. The FNB group received an ACB with 30 mL saline and an FNB with ropivacaine 0.2% 30 mL. We compared the effect of the ACB versus FNB on maximum voluntary isometric contraction of the quadriceps muscle relative to a postoperative baseline value. Secondary end points were differences between groups in ability to ambulate and changes in pain scores (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01922596).ResultsAfter block, the quadriceps maximum voluntary isometric contraction increased to 193% (95% confidence interval [CI], 143–288) of the baseline value in the ACB group and decreased to 16% (95% CI, 3–33) in the FNB group with an estimated difference of 178% (95% CI, 136–226), P < 0.0001. Pain scores were similar between groups. Before block, 2 of 25 patients in each group were unable to perform the Timed-Up-and-Go test; after block, this number increased to 7 of 25 in the FNB group and decreased to 0 of 25 in the ACB group.ConclusionAdductor canal block provides a clinically relevant and statistically significant increase in quadriceps muscle strength for patients in severe pain after TKA.

Background and ObjectivesFemoral nerve block (FNB), a commonly used postoperative pain treatment after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), reduces quadriceps muscle strength essential for mobilization. In contrast, adductor canal block (ACB) is predominately a sensory nerve block. We hypothesized that ACB preserves quadriceps muscle strength as compared with FNB (primary end point) in patients after TKA. Secondary end points were effects on morphine consumption, pain, adductor muscle strength, morphine-related complications, and mobilization ability.MethodsWe performed a double-blind, randomized, controlled study of patients scheduled for TKA with spinal anesthesia. The patients were randomized to receive either a continuous ACB or an FNB via a catheter (30-mL 0.5% ropivacaine given initially, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine, 8 mL/h for 24 hours). Muscle strength was assessed with a handheld dynamometer, and we used the percentile change from baseline for comparisons. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01470391).ResultsWe enrolled 54 patients, of which 48 were analyzed. Quadriceps strength as a percentage of baseline was significantly higher in the ACB group compared with the FNB group: (median [range]) 52% [31–71] versus 18% [4–48], (95% confidence interval, 8–41; P = 0.004). There was no difference between the groups regarding morphine consumption (P = 0.94), pain at rest (P = 0.21), pain during flexion of the knee (P = 0.16), or adductor muscle strength (P = 0.39); neither was there a difference in morphine-related adverse effects or mobilization ability (P > 0.05).ConclusionsAdductor canal block preserved quadriceps muscle strength better than FNB, without a significant difference in postoperative pain.

PurposeThis study aimed to characterize 252 consecutive patients with an indication for major emergency abdominal surgery including patients not proceeding to surgery (No-Lap). Patients who do not proceed to major emergency abdominal surgery and their clinical outcomes are not well characterized in the existing literature. Triage criteria may vary between centers, potentially impacting reported outcomes.MethodsA single-center prospective observational study in a high-volume Danish surgical center including 252 patients presenting with an indication for major emergent abdominal surgery was conducted from the 15th of October 2020 to the 15th of August 2021. The primary outcome was to estimate the prevalence of No-Lap patients.ResultsOverall, 21 patients (8.3%) of our total study cohort did not proceed to surgery. These patients were significantly older, more comorbid with higher ASA scores, poorer performance status, and were more likely to have bowel ischemia. Poor functional performance and surgeons’ consideration of futile intervention were the main reasons for deferring surgery in all 21 patients. Overall, 30-day mortality was 95% for the No-LAP cohort, 9% for the LAP cohort, and 16% for the whole cohort, respectively.ConclusionsThe No-LAP group selection process could be one of the main determinants of reported postoperative outcomes. Prospective international multi-center studies to characterize the entire cohort of patients eligible for emergency laparotomy including the No-LAP population are needed, as large variations in triage criteria and culture seem to exist.Trial registration Retrospectively registered.

ObjectivesCardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) and abnormal circadian blood pressure (BP) rhythm are independent cardiovascular risk factors in patients with diabetes and associations between CAN, non-dipping of nocturnal BP and coronary artery disease have been demonstrated. We aimed to test if bedtime dosing (BD) versus morning dosing (MD) of the ACE inhibitor enalapril would affect the 24-hour BP profile in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), CAN and non-dipping.SettingSecondary healthcare unit in Copenhagen, Denmark.Participants24 normoalbuminuric patients with T1D with CAN and non-dipping were included, consisting of mixed gender and Caucasian origin. Mean±SD age, glycosylated haemoglobin and diabetes duration were 60±7 years, 7.9±0.7% (62±7 mmol/mol) and 36±11 years.InterventionsIn this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind cross-over study, the patients were treated for 12 weeks with either MD (20 mg enalapril in the morning and placebo at bedtime) or BD (placebo in the morning and 20 mg enalapril at bedtime), followed by 12 weeks of switched treatment regimen.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome was altered dipping of nocturnal BP. Secondary outcomes included a measurable effect on other cardiovascular risk factors than BP, including left ventricular function (LVF).ResultsSystolic BP dipping increased 2.4% (0.03–4.9%; p=0.048) with BD compared to MD of enalapril. There was no increase in mean arterial pressure dipping (2.2% (−0.1% to 4.5%; p=0.07)). No difference was found on measures of LVF (p≥0.15). No adverse events were registered during the study.ConclusionsWe demonstrated that patients with T1D with CAN and non-dipping can be treated with an ACE inhibitor at night as BD as opposed to MD increased BP dipping, thereby diminishing the abnormal BP profile. The potentially beneficial effect on long-term cardiovascular risk remains to be determined.Trial registration numberEudraCT2012-002136-90; Post-results.

Background and ObjectivesAdductor canal block (ACB) is predominantly a sensory nerve block, but excess volume may spread to the femoral triangle and reduce quadriceps strength. We hypothesized that reducing the local anesthetic volume from 30 to 10 mL may lead to fewer subjects with quadriceps weakness.MethodsWe performed a paired, blinded, randomized trial including healthy men. All subjects received bilateral ACBs with ropivacaine 0.1%; 10 mL in 1 leg and 30 mL in the other leg. The primary outcome was the difference in number of subjects with quadriceps strength reduced by more than 25% from baseline in 2 consecutive assessments. Secondary outcomes were quadriceps strength as a percentage of baseline at predefined time points, functional outcome assessed by the 30-Second Chair Stand Test (1 leg at a time), and sensory block. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01981746.ResultsWe included and analyzed 26 subjects. For either volume, 2 subjects had a reduction in quadriceps strength by more than 25% from baseline (difference, 0%; 95% confidence interval, −13 to 13; P > 0.999). Similarly, we found no significant differences between volumes in quadriceps strength at any of the predefined time points or in sensory block. The only statistically significant difference between volumes was found in the 30-Second Chair Stand Test at 2 hours (P = 0.02), but this difference had disappeared at 4 hours (P = 0.06).ConclusionsVarying the volume of ropivacaine 0.1% used for ACB between 10 and 30 mL did not have a statistically significant or clinically relevant impact on quadriceps strength.

Introduction Cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) and elevated nocturnal blood pressure are independent risk factors for cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. Previously, associations between CAN, non-dipping of nocturnal blood pressure and coronary artery calcification have been demonstrated. The present protocol describes a trial to test the efficacy of bedtime dosing of the ACE inhibitor enalapril on night time blood pressure and left ventricular mass in patients with type 1 diabetes. Materials and methods In a randomised, double-blind, two-way cross-over study, 24 normoalbuminuric patients with type 1 diabetes with CAN will be treated for 12 weeks with either morning or bedtime dosing of 20 mg enalapril, followed by 12 weeks of switched treatment regimen. During each treatment period, two 24 h ambulatory blood pressure measurements will be performed and after each treatment period left ventricular mass will be determined by multisliced CT. Primary end points will be reduction in blood pressure and reduction in left ventricular mass. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the Danish Medicines Agency, the Scientific-Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark and the Danish Data Protection Agency. An external monitoring committee (the Good Clinical Practice Unit at Copenhagen University Hospital) will oversee the study. The results of the study will be presented at national and international scientific meetings and publications will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number EudraCT (2012- 002136-90).