Both general and spinal anaesthesia with short-acting local anaesthetics are suitable and reliable for knee arthroscopy as an ambulatory procedure. Chloroprocaine (CP) 1% seems to be the ideal spinal local anaesthetic for this indication. The aim of this study was to compare spinal anaesthesia using CP 1% with general for outpatient knee arthroscopy with regard to procedure times, occurrence of pain, patient satisfaction and recovery, and also costs. A randomised controlled single-centre trial. University Medical Centre Mannheim, Department of Anaesthesiology and Surgical Intensive Care Medicine, Mannheim, Germany. April 2014 to August 2015. A total of 50 patients (women/men, 18 to 80 years old, ASA I to III) undergoing outpatient knee arthroscopy were included. A contra-indication to an allocated anaesthetic technique or an allergy to medication required in the protocol led to exclusion. Either general anaesthesia with sufentanil, propofol and a laryngeal mask for airway-management or spinal with 40-mg CP 1% were used. We noted procedure times, patient satisfaction/recovery and conducted a 7-day follow-up. Primary outcome was duration of stay in the day-surgery centre. Secondary outcomes were first occurrence of pain, patient satisfaction, quality of recovery and adverse effects. In addition, we analysed treatment costs. Spinal had faster recovery than general anaesthesia with patients reaching discharge criteria significantly earlier [117 min (66 to 167) versus 142 min (82 to 228), P = 0.0047]. Pain occurred significantly earlier in the general anaesthesia group (P = 0.0072). Costs were less with spinal anaesthesia (cost ratio spinal: general 0.57). Patients felt significantly more uncomfortable after general anaesthesia (P = 0.0096). Spinal anaesthesia with 40-mg CP 1% leads to a significantly earlier discharge and is cheaper compared with general. German Clinical Trials Register, www.drks.de, identifier: DRKS00005989.

Background: Tracheoesophageal fistulae (TEF) after oncologic resections and multimodal treatment are life-threatening and surgically challenging. Radiation and prior procedures hamper wound healing and lead to high complication rates. We present an interdisciplinary algorithm for the treatment of TEF derived from the therapy of consecutive patients. Patients and methods: 18 patients (3 females, 15 males) treated for TEF from January 2015 to July 2017 were included. Two patients were treated palliatively, whereas reconstructions were attempted in 16 cases undergoing 24 procedures. Discontinuity resection and secondary gastric pull-up were performed in two patients. Pedicled reconstructions were pectoralis major (n = 2), sternocleidomastoid muscle (n = 2), latissimus dorsi (n = 1) or intercostal muscle (ICM, n = 7) flaps. Free flaps were anterolateral thigh (ALT, n = 4), combined anterolateral thigh/anteromedial thigh (ALT/AMT, n = 1), jejunum (n = 3) or combined ALT–jejunum flaps (n = 2). Results: Regarding all 18 patients, 11 of 16 reconstructive attempts were primarily successful (61%), whereas long-term success after multiple procedures was possible in 83% (n = 15). The 30-day survival was 89%. Derived from the experience, patients were divided into three subgroups (extrathoracic, cervicothoracic, intrathroracic TEF) and a treatment algorithm was developed. Primary reconstructions for extra- and cervicothoracic TEF were pedicled flaps, whereas free flaps were used in recurrent or persistent cases. Pedicled ICM flaps were mostly used for intrathoracic TEF. Conclusion: TEF after multimodal tumor treatment require concerted interdisciplinary efforts for successful reconstruction. We describe a differentiated reconstructive approach including multiple reconstructive techniques from pedicled to chimeric ALT/jejunum flaps. Hereby, successful reconstructions are mostly possible. However, disease and patient-specific morbidity has to be anticipated and requires further interdisciplinary management.

Background: Finding the optimal amount of fluid is a major challenge in burn shock. Although there is evidence that a restrictive fluid regime is beneficial, current practice shows fluid resuscitation still well above recommendations. The extent of trauma, pre-hospital care and the patient’s pre-existing conditions influence requirements. Methods: We analysed outcomes and influencing factors of fluid regimes in a retrospective cohort study including 90 severely burnt patients resuscitated with the same protocol. Results: The mean amount of fluids in the first 24 h was 6.5 mL/kg bodyweight (BW)/% total burn surface area (TBSA). A total of 14% received restrictive (6) mL/kgBW/%TBSA fluids. There was no difference regarding mortality, age, complications, organ failure, inhalation injury or full-thickness burns in the groups. Patients with excessive fluid therapy had a significantly lower ABSI score (9 vs. 11, p = 0.05) and TBSA (35 vs. 51%, p < 0.001), while patients with a restrictive fluid therapy needed fewer incidences of surgery to cover burn wounds (3.5 vs. 9.0 vs. 7.0, p = 0.008). History of liver disease or alcohol abuse tended to indicate excessive fluid administration. Patients with pre-existing heart failure received restrictive fluid therapy (23 vs. 3 vs. 4%, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Individualised, timely therapy monitoring is as essential as identifying patients with a higher or lower fluid requirement. Excessive fluid resuscitation had fewer deleterious consequences in complications than expected but seems to influence wound healing. Awareness of circumstances that prompt deviations from recommended fluid rates remains elementary.

Background and Objectives: Severe burn injuries are still associated with high mortality. The length of intensive care stay is strongly influenced by the severity of organ failure, with multi-organ failure being the main cause of death in up to 40% of cases. Liver dysfunction is the second most common organ failure. Conventional diagnosis relies on static laboratory parameters that reflect damage already caused. Measuring the hepatic clearance of indocyanine green (LiMON^®) offers a dynamic, bedside method for detecting liver dysfunction early, enabling timely therapy adjustments. Materials and Methods: In this prospective single-centre observational study, all patients admitted to the Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin Burns Centre from October 2022 to September 2024 with ≥30% TBSA burns were included. Liver function was assessed via LiMON^® within 24 h post-injury and every 48 h until day 14 or ICU discharge. Static liver parameters were measured in parallel. Results: We included a total of 23 patients. An initial measurement was only successful in 18 cases. On admission, six patients (33%) had normal liver function with a plasma duration rate (PDR) > 18% (PDR 30.9 ± 7.3%), while 12 (67%) showed reduced clearance (PDR 14.5 ± 2.6%). In 75% of cases (n = 9), function recovered within 48 h. Based on PDR progression, four liver function patterns were defined: “stable”, “recovery”, “late insufficiency”, and “failure”; a fifth pattern included all patients who were deceased during this study (“death”). These groups differed in fluid therapy, plasma transfusion, and catecholamines administered. PDR correlated well with aminotransferase levels. Conclusions: Dynamic liver function monitoring enables earlier detection of impairment than static markers. Early identification of at-risk patients could guide fluid management and improve outcomes. LiMON^® is a valuable tool in burn care, though alternative methods may be needed in patients with severe systemic hypoperfusion.