A Convenient Method to Estimate Alignment of Eyes Under General Anesthesia in Strabismus Subjects

We studied the relationship between eye position in the awakened state and in the surgical plane of anesthesia in orthophoric and horizontal strabismus patients. We classified 105 orthophoric and horizontal strabismus patients into 5 groups, measured the eye position at the primary position by photographic measurement of the corneal reflex positions and undertook a quantitative study of eye position. Under general anesthesia, the mean divergence was 39.7+/-8 PD for the esotropia group, 36.6+/-11.7 PD for exophoria, 27.4+/-8.1 PD for orthophoria, and 11.1+/-10.2 PD for exotropia I (< or =30 PD). Therefore, the esotropia group had the largest amount of divergence among the groups, but the eye position of the exotropia II (>30 PD) group was rather convergent at 11.0+/-6.5 PD. According to the eye position of the fixating and nonfixating eyes in the esotropia group, both eyes converged with an angle deviation of 14.4+/-4.8 PD divergent and 14.1+/-4.8 PD divergent, respectively (P=.71). In the exotropia groups (I, II), the fixating eye diverged but the nonfixating eye rather converged. Therefore, the angle deviation was 19.0+/-2.1 PD divergent for the fixating eye and 18.2+/-6.4 PD divergent for the nonfixating eye (P=.68). In conclusion, under general anesthesia, eye positions in the awakened state and in the surgical plane of anesthesia were convergent or divergent, and showed a tendency to converge into the position of 25-35 PD divergent. Therefore, we could not distinguish fixating eye from nonfixating eye under general anesthesia.

Cardiac outcomes after regional or general anesthesia. Do we have the answer?

General anesthesia for Cesarean delivery affects maternal and neonatal outcomes. We aimed to evaluate temporal trends in anesthesia management for Cesarean deliveries over 16years and analyze interinstitutional variations in general anesthesia use in Japan. In this retrospective cohort study, we obtained patient data from the nationwide health insurance claims database containing data for ten million individuals. We included patients who underwent Cesarean delivery between 1 January 2005 and 31 August 2021. The primary outcome was the use of general anesthesia. We evaluated institutional variations in general anesthesia use in medical facilities using two-level hierarchical logistic regression analyses with median odds ratios and intraclass correlation coefficients. The cohort included 86,793 patients who underwent 102,617 Cesarean deliveries at 2,496 institutions. General anesthesia was used in 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6 to 3.9) of all Cesarean deliveries. The temporal trend in the use of general anesthesia decreased gradually from 10.8% in 2005 to 2.9% in 2021 (P for trend <0.001). The adjusted median odds ratio for medical facilities was 6.1 (95% CI, 5.9 to 6.7), and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.55). Although the rate of general anesthesia use for Cesarean delivery in Japan decreased gradually from 2005 to 2021, general anesthesia was used in 3.7% of all Cesarean deliveries. The use of general anesthesia varied significantly across institutions, and 52% of the overall variations in general anesthesia practice can be explained by differences between facilities.

Change in the eye position under general anesthesia in children with intermittent exotropia

Limited information is available on the risks of epilepsy after surgery in patients receiving general or neuraxial anaesthesia. Using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, we identified 1,478,977 patients aged ≥20years who underwent surgery (required general or neuraxial anaesthesia with hospitalisation for more than oneday) between 2004 and 2011. We selected 235,066 patients with general anaesthesia and 235,066 patients with neuraxial anaesthesia using a frequency-matching procedure for age and sex. We did not study those with co-existing epilepsy-related risk factors. The adjusted rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of newly diagnosed epilepsy 1year after surgery associated with general anaesthesia were analysed in the multivariate Poisson regression model. The one-year incidence of postoperative epilepsy for patients with general anaesthesia and neuraxial anaesthesia were 0.41 and 0.32 per 1000 persons, respectively, and the corresponding RR was 1.27 (95%CI 1.15-1.41). The association between general anaesthesia and postoperative epilepsy was significant in men (RR=1.22; 95%CI 1.06-1.40), women (RR=1.33; 95%CI 1.15-1.55) and 20-39-year-old patients. The risk of postoperative epilepsy increased in patients with general anaesthesia who had co-existing medical conditions and postoperative complications.

Level III, diagnostic study.

The aim of this study was to compare the operating time, length of stay (LOS), adverse events and rate of re-admission for elderly patients with a fracture of the hip treated using either general or spinal anaesthesia. Patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent surgery for a fracture of the hip between 2010 and 2012 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Of the 9842 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 7253 (73.7%) were treated with general anaesthesia and 2589 (26.3%) with spinal anaesthesia. On propensity-adjusted multivariate analysis, general anaesthesia was associated with slightly increased operating time (+5 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) +4 to +6, p < 0.001) and post-operative time in the operating room (+5 minutes, 95% CI +2 to +8, p < 0.001) compared with spinal anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was associated with a shorter LOS (hazard ratio (HR) 1.28, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.34, p < 0.001). Any adverse event (odds ratio (OR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32, p < 0.001), thromboembolic events (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.89, p = 0.003), any minor adverse event (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.32, p < 0.001), and blood transfusion (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.49, p < 0.001) were associated with general anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was associated with decreased rates of urinary tract infection (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.87, p < 0.001). There was no clear overall advantage of one type of anaesthesia over the other, and surgeons should be aware of the specific risks and benefits associated with each type.

To investigate the therapeutic effects of simultaneous horizontal and vertical operations on dissociated vertical deviation (DVD) associated with other deviations. Forty-five cases of DVD with horizontal and torsional strabismus underwent combined operation were collected retrospectively. All clinical records were analyzed. All patients were followed up for 6 to 24mo. Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was performed to evaluate the changes of vertical and horizontal deviation. χ 2 test was used to evaluate the changes of binocular visual function. Forty-five cases included 36 patients with intermittent exotropia and binocular inferior oblique overaction (IOOA), 5 patients with concomitant esotropia and binocular IOOA, 4 patients with intermittent exotropia and monocular superior oblique palsy. The superior rectus recession (SRR) combined with horizontal rectus recession and the myectomy of inferior oblique or anterior transposition were operated simultaneously to correct all types of strabismus. There were 43 cases who achieved normal eye position in vertical direction, while 2 cases were with undercorrection of 5Δ to 6Δ. In patients with horizontal strabismus, 2 cases of exotropia were with overcorrection of 6Δ to 8Δ, 1 case of esotropia was with undercorrection of 6Δ, and 1 case of monocular superior oblique palsy with compensatory head posture was not significantly improved. The binocular visual function of most patients recovered after operation. The difference of the binocular visual function and eye position were significant compared with that before operation (P<0.05). The simultaneous operation on DVD with horizontal and torsional strabismus is successful.

Backgrounds: Types of anesthesia provision and perioperative patient cares are the main determinants of neonatal outcome in mothers undergo caesarean section. Body of evidence didn't clearly reveal which types of Anesthesia technique is associated with better neonatal outcomes in mothers who gave birth under spinal anesthesia than general anesthesia. The aim of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to compare neonatal outcomes in mothers who undergo caesarean section under general anesthesia and regional anesthesia. Methods: We carried out a systemic search of the electronic databases of central, Medline, Embase, LILACS, AOLJ and others with PICO strategy for controlled clinical trials comparing neonatal outcomes under general and regional anesthesia. Twenty trials were identified for eligibility assessment, ten trials were selected for data extraction, and nine trials were finally included in the meta-analysis. All controlled clinical trials using regional and general anesthesia for ASA I-II term pregnant women coming for cesarean section in elective and semi-urgent condition were selected. Eligibility assessment was performed independently by the two review authors using a customized form, while discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The Data from individual trial were extracted and entered Review Manager for synthesis. Results: Ten studies (782 participants) were included in this review. The Apgar score at one minute less than seven was better in spinal anesthesia as compared to General Anesthesia (OR=0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.42, 5 trials, 548 participants). There was no significant association at 5^(th) minute Apgar score less than seven (OR= -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.05, 3 trials, 260 participants). There was significant mean difference between spinal and general anesthesia on neonatal mean Apgar score at 5^(th) minute (MD=0.51, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.88, 5 trials, 671 participants). There was a significant mean difference on Umbilical artery and Venous PH when general anesthesia is compared with spinal anesthesia (MD= -0.01, 95% CI -0.002 top -0.00, one trial, 40 participants) and (MD= -0.98, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.30, one trial, 40 participants). Conclusion: Regional Anesthesia is superior over general Anesthesia in certain neonatal outcomes as depicted by the pooled analysis of individual trials. However, there should be further review with individual trials having high power and similar dosage and techniques as most of the individual trials in this review are low powered and different types of outcome assessment techniques.

To determine whether combining spinal or epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia (combined anesthesia) reduces major medical complications of elective surgery compared with general anesthesia alone. We conducted a propensity-matched population-based historical cohort study using large healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada. We identified patients undergoing 21 different elective procedures that were amenable to either combined anesthesia or general anesthesia alone in 108 hospitals from 2004 to 2011. We assessed the following four outcomes together as a composite and individually in the 30days following surgery: acute kidney injury, stroke, myocardial infarction, and all-cause mortality. Prior to matching, we identified 21,701 patients receiving general anesthesia and 8,042 patients receiving combined anesthesia. After matching, our cohort included 12,379 patients. Twenty-eight baseline characteristics were well-matched between the combined (n=4,773) and general anesthesia groups (n=7,606). Mean patient age was 66yr. Relative to general anesthesia alone, combined anesthesia was not associated with a reduced risk for the composite outcome [104/4,773 (2.2%) vs 162/7,606 (2.1%); odds ratio (OR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.24] or for any of the four component outcomes when examined separately: acute kidney injury (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.51), stroke (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.73), myocardial infarction (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.57), and all-cause mortality (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.42). The addition of spinal or epidural anesthesia to general anesthesia was not associated with a reduced risk of major medical complications among 21 different elective procedures when compared with general anesthesia alone.

Perioperative outcomes of general versus spinal anesthesia in the lumbar spine surgery population: A systematic review and meta-analysis of data from 2005 through 2021

To evaluate the associations between anesthesia and dementia or Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk using prospectively collected data. Cohort study. Community-dwelling members of the Adult Changes in Thought cohort aged 65 and older and free of dementia at baseline (N = 3,988). Participants self-reported all prior surgical procedures with general or neuraxial (spinal or epidural) anesthesia at baseline and reported new procedures every 2 years. People undergoing high-risk surgery with general anesthesia, other surgery with general anesthesia, and other surgery with neuraxial anesthesia exposures were compared with those with no surgery and no anesthesia. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dementia and AD associated with time-varying lifetime and recent (past 5 years) anesthesia exposures. At baseline, 254 (6%) people reported never having anesthesia; 248 (6%) had had one or more high-risk surgeries with general anesthesia, 3,363 (84%) had had one or more other surgeries with general anesthesia, and 123 (3%) had had one or more surgeries with neuraxial anesthesia. High-risk surgery with general anesthesia was not associated with greater risk of dementia (HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.58-1.28) or AD (HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.61-1.49) than no history of anesthesia. People with any history of other surgery with general anesthesia had a lower risk of dementia (HR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.46-0.85) and AD (HR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.46-0.93) than people with no history of anesthesia. There was no association between recent anesthesia exposure and dementia or AD. Anesthesia exposure was not associated with of dementia or AD in older adults.

Objectives To evaluate the associations between anesthesia and dementia or Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk using prospectively collected data. Design Cohort study. Participants Community-dwelling members of the Adult Changes in Thought cohort aged 65 and older and free of dementia at baseline (N = 3,988). Measurements Participants self-reported all prior surgical procedures with general or neuraxial (spinal or epidural) anesthesia at baseline and reported new procedures every 2 years. People undergoing high-risk surgery with general anesthesia, other surgery with general anesthesia, and other surgery with neuraxial anesthesia exposures were compared with those with no surgery and no anesthesia. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dementia and AD associated with time-varying lifetime and recent (past 5 years) anesthesia exposures. Results At baseline, 254 (6%) people reported never having anesthesia; 248 (6%) had had one or more high-risk surgeries with general anesthesia, 3,363 (84%) had had one or more other surgeries with general anesthesia, and 123 (3%) had had one or more surgeries with neuraxial anesthesia. High-risk surgery with general anesthesia was not associated with greater risk of dementia (HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.58–1.28) or AD (HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.61–1.49) than no history of anesthesia. People with any history of other surgery with general anesthesia had a lower risk of dementia (HR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.46–0.85) and AD (HR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.46–0.93) than people with no history of anesthesia. There was no association between recent anesthesia exposure and dementia or AD. Conclusion Anesthesia exposure was not associated with of dementia or AD in older adults.

Critical airway incidents are a major cause of morbidity and mortality during anesthesia. Delayed management of airway obstruction quickly leads to severe complications due to the reduced apnea tolerance in infants and neonates. The decision of whether to intubate the trachea during anesthesia is therefore of great importance, particularly as an increasing number of procedures are performed outside of the operating room. In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated airway management for infants below 6months of age undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion. We compared demographic, procedural, and health outcome-related data for infants undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion under general endotracheal anesthesia (n=105) to those receiving monitored anesthesia care (n=44) without endotracheal intubation. A retrospective chart review was completed for all infants <6months of age who underwent percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion in our institution's endoscopy suite between January 2002 and January 2017. Descriptive statistics summarized numeric variables using medians and corresponding ranges (minimum-maximum), and categorical variables using frequencies and percentages. Differences in study outcomes between patients undergoing general anesthesia or monitored anesthesia care were evaluated with univariate quantile or Firth logistic regression for numerical and categorical outcomes, respectively. Results are presented as β [95% confidence interval] or odds ratio [95% confidence interval] along with corresponding p-values. Both groups were similar in distribution of age, race, and gender. However, patients selected for general anesthesia had lower median body weights (3.9 kg [range: 2.0-6.7] vs. 4.4 kg [range: 2.6-6.9]), higher percentages of cardiac (95.2% vs. 84.1%), and/or neurologic comorbidities (74.3% vs. 56.8%) and were more frequently given American Society of Anesthesiologists level IV classifications (41.9% vs. 29.6%) indicating that these infants may have had more severe disease than patients selected for monitored anesthesia care. Three monitored-anesthesia-care patients required intraoperative conversion to general anesthesia. General anesthesia patients experienced greater odds of intraoperative hypoxemia (45.2% vs. 29.0%; odds ratio: 2.0 [0.9-4.3], p-value: .09) and required postoperative airway intervention more frequently than monitored-anesthesia-care patients (13.03% vs. 2.3%; odds ratio: 4.6 [0.8-25.6], p-value: .08). Procedure times were identical in both groups (6 min), but general anesthesia resulted in longer median anesthesia times (44 min [range: 22-292] vs. 12 min [range:19-136]; β:13 [95% 6.9-19.1], p-value: < .001). Study results suggest that providers selected general anesthesia over monitored anesthesia care for infants and neonates with low body weights, cardiac comorbidities, and neurologic comorbidities. Increased rates of airway intervention, and increased length of stay may be at least partially related to more severe patient comorbidity, as indicated by higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classifications. However, due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, further confirmatory studies are needed to evaluate the impact of airway selection during PEG on postoperative patient outcomes.

School-based programmes for preventing child sex abuse may improve knowledge and selfprotective behaviours but also increase anxiety; further research is needed. Childhood sexual abuse is a serious problem for school aged children worldwide. There is no consistent definition of sexual abuse. Some studies restrict sexual abuse to instances of sexual body contact with the child, while others define sexual abuse as any sexual behaviour in a child's presence. Whatever its form, childhood sexual abuse can have a very negative impact on a child. The United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child states that "children have the right to be protected from being hurt and mistreated, physically or mentally" and the international community needs to investigate ways this can be done effectively. One widespread method used is to teach school aged children, using school-based programs, about child sexual abuse and how to protect themselves from it. It is important to know if this approach works, for how long it works and if it causes any unintended harm to children and adolescents. This is the purpose of this systematic review. While this review found improvements in knowledge and protective behaviours among children who had received school-based programs, these results should be interpreted with caution. The reasons for a need for caution is that there were problems with the way that many of the original studies were analysed, children's knowledge was tested only a short time period after the program, the studies were conducted in North America and therefore may not apply to other countries and cultures, and several studies reported harms, such as increased anxiety in children. Potential harms need to be closely monitored in future studies and existing school based programs. It is difficult to know if the changes in children's knowledge and protective behaviours seen in the studies will result in prevention of child sexual abuse. As such, school-based programs should, at best, be seen as part of a community approach to the prevention of child sexual abuse.