Early perioperative quality of recovery after hip and knee arthroplasty: a retrospective comparative cohort study

The impact of perioperative ketamine or esketamine on the subjective quality of recovery after surgery: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of ketamine/esketamine on postoperative subjective quality of recovery (QoR).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the impacts of perioperative ketamine/esketamine use and postoperative QoR. The primary outcome was subjective QoR (QoR-9, QoR-15, QoR-40) on postoperative day (POD) 1-3, whereas the secondary outcomes included pain severity, anxiety scores, depression scores, risk of adverse events (i.e. nausea, vomiting, dizziness, drowsiness), and length of stay.

RESULTS

The analysis included 18 RCTs (1554 participants; ketamine: seven trials, esketamine: 11 trials), of which 15 were conducted in China. Ketamine/esketamine improved the QoR scores on PODs 1 and 2 compared with the control (standardised mean difference [SMD]: 0.63, P<0.0001 for POD 1; SMD: 0.56, P=0.04 for POD 2), without beneficial effect on POD 3. Subgroup analyses revealed significant differences in QoR scores on POD 1 by regimen (SMD: esketamine 1.14, ketamine 0.01) and country (SMD: China 0.82, other countries -0.21). The emotional domain of QoR was improved from PODs 1 to 3, whereas the other domains were only improved on POD 1. Lower postoperative anxiety (SMD: -0.48, P=0.003) and depression (SMD: -0.72, P=0.001) scores were also observed with ketamine/esketamine use. Furthermore, pain severity was reduced on PODs 1 and 2, with no difference in the risk of adverse events or length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrated that ketamine/esketamine use in the perioperative period is associated with improved early subjective QoR, pain severity, and psychological symptoms without an increase in the likelihood of adverse events.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO (CRD42023477580).

Hospital Length of Stay and Associated Factors in Patients with Osteoarthritis from Germany: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective: There is a scarcity of data on hospital length of stay (LOS) in the osteoarthritis population. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate hospital LOS and associated factors in patients with osteoarthritis from Germany. Methods: The present cross-sectional study included patients hospitalized for osteoarthritis in one of fourteen hospitals in Germany between 2018 and 2023 (hospital database; IQVIA). The study outcome was the duration of hospital stay in days. Study covariables included age, sex, hospital department, osteoarthritis type, co-diagnosis, and hospitalization-related procedure. Associations between covariables and hospital LOS were analyzed using hierarchical linear regression models. Results: There were 8770 patients included in the study (mean [standard deviation] age 68.7 [10.8] years; 60.2% women). The mean (standard deviation) hospital LOS was 8.5 (5.0) days. Factors positively and significantly associated with hospital LOS were older age, female sex, orthopedic surgery and other medical specialty departments (compared with other surgery departments), knee and other and unspecified osteoarthritis (compared with hip osteoarthritis), multiple co-diagnoses (e.g., acute posthemorrhagic anemia, other disorders of fluid, electrolyte, and acid-base balance, and disorders of purine and pyrimidine metabolism), and several hospitalization-related procedures (i.e., geriatric rehabilitation, hip arthroplasty, and knee arthroplasty). Conclusions: The mean hospital LOS was higher than eight days in this osteoarthritis population from Germany, with a spectrum of demographic, clinical, and hospitalization-related factors associated with this hospital LOS. In this context, interventions are needed to reduce the LOS of hospitalizations for osteoarthritis in Germany.

Enhancing surgical precision: unveiling the impact of preoperative colonoscopy in anal fistula patients

BACKGROUND

Anal fistula is a common benign anorectal disease that often requires surgical intervention for effective treatment. In recent years, preoperative colonoscopy as a diagnostic tool in patients with anal fistula has garnered increasing attention due to its potential clinical application value. By investigating underlying inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), polyps, and other abnormalities, preoperative colonoscopy can offer insights to refine surgical strategies and improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective study focused on 1796 patients with various benign anorectal diseases who underwent preoperative intestinal endoscopy and met surgical criteria within the preceding three years at the First Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Among these patients, 949 diagnosed with anal fistula comprised group A, while 847 patients without anal fistula were assigned to group B for comparison. The investigation encompassed an analysis of general patient information, endoscopic findings, polyp histopathology, distribution of bowel inflammation sites, and results of inflammatory bowel disease assessments between the two patient cohorts. A subgroup analysis was also conducted on 2275 anal fistula patients with no surgical contraindications. This subgroup was categorized into Group A (949 patients who underwent preoperative intestinal endoscopy) and Group C (1326 patients who did not undergo preoperative colonoscopy). The study compared the rates of detecting endoscopic lesions and IBD-related findings between the two subgroups.

RESULTS

The study initially confirmed the comparability of general patient information between groups A and B. Notably, the abnormal detection rate in group A was significantly higher than in group B (P < 0.01). In terms of endoscopic findings, the anal fistula group (group A) exhibited higher rates of detecting bowel inflammation, inflammatory bowel disease, and polyps compared to the non-anal fistula group (group B) (P < 0.05). The distribution of inflammation locations indicated higher detection rates in the terminal ileum, ileocecal region, and ascending colon for group A compared to group B (P < 0.05). Although the incidence of IBD in group A was higher than in group B, this difference did not reach statistical significance (P > 0.05). Subsequently, the analysis of the subgroup (groups A and C) revealed a significant disparity in intestinal endoscopic detection rates (P < 0.01) and statistically significant differences in detecting IBD (P < 0.05) and Crohn's disease (P < 0.05) between the two anal fistula subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study underscore the substantial clinical value of preoperative colonoscopy in the comprehensive evaluation of patients with anal fistula. Preoperative colonoscopy aids in ruling out localized perianal lesions caused by underlying inflammatory bowel disease, thereby mitigating the likelihood of missed diagnoses and enhancing treatment outcomes. This research highlights the importance of incorporating preoperative colonoscopy as a valuable diagnostic tool in managing anal fistula patients.