Background and Objectives: The management of acute postoperative pain (APP) following major abdominal surgery implies various analgetic strategies. Opioids lie at the core of every analgesia protocol, despite their side effect profile. To limit patients’ exposure to opioids, considerable effort has been made to define new opioid-sparing anesthesia techniques relying on multimodal analgesia. Our study aims to investigate the role of adjuvant multimodal analgesic agents, such as ketamine, lidocaine, and epidural analgesia in perioperative pain control, the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD), and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after major abdominal surgery. Materials and Methods: This is a clinical, observational, randomized, monocentric study, in which 80 patients were enrolled and divided into three groups: Standard group, C (n = 32), where patients received perioperative opioids combined with a fixed regimen of metamizole/acetaminophen for pain control; co-analgetic group, Co-A (n = 26), where, in addition to standard therapy, patients received perioperative systemic ketamine and lidocaine; and the epidural group, EA (n = 22), which included patients that received standard perioperative analgetic therapy combined with epidural analgesia. We considered the primary outcome, the postoperative pain intensity, assessed by the visual analogue scale (VAS) at 1 h, 6 h, and 12 h postoperatively. The secondary outcomes were the total intraoperative fentanyl dose, total postoperative morphine dose, maximal intraoperative sevoflurane concentration, confusion assessment method for intensive care units score (CAM-ICU) at 1 h, 6 h, and 12 h postoperatively, and the postoperative dose of ondansetron as a marker for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) severity. Results: We observed a significant decrease in VAS score, as the primary outcome, for both multimodal analgesic regimens, as compared to the control. Moreover, the intraoperative fentanyl and postoperative morphine doses were, consequently, reduced. The maximal sevoflurane concentration and POCD were reduced by EA. No differences were observed between groups concerning PONV severity. Conclusions: Multimodal analgesia concepts should be individualized based on the patient’s needs and consent. Efforts should be made to develop strategies that can aid in the reduction of opioid use in a perioperative setting and improve the standard of care.

Background and Objectives: Impaired cognition and pain after surgery contribute to prolonged hospital stays and increased mortality rates. Thus, the development of preemptive algorithms for reducing their impact should be prioritized. The main objectives of the present study were to evaluate the efficiency of using virtual reality (VR) to treat postoperative cognitive decline and pain perception. Materials and Methods: The study was a prospective, monocentric, clinical study that included 51 patients who have undergone major abdominal surgery. The patients were divided into two groups: Control (n = 25) and VR (n = 26). The VR sessions consisted of 5–8 min exposure at 24–48 h after surgery. We considered the outcome variables, the mini-mental state examination, and visual analogue scale at 24–48 h after surgery. The dependent variables were age, social status, educational level, and duration of surgery. Results: We did not observe any differences in postoperative cognition deficit with regard to VR. The VR, however, successfully reduced postoperative pain intensity. Moreover, the patients’ age, surgery duration, level of education, and social status influenced the MMSE score at 24–48 h after surgery. Conclusions: Even if using VR does not alleviate short-term postoperative cognitive impairments, it could affect pain perception. Further studies are needed to support the use of VR in perioperative contexts.

Sepsis is one of the most common causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite the remarkable advances in modern medicine throughout the last century, the mortality rates associated with sepsis have remained significantly elevated, both in high- and low-income countries. The main difficulty in the diagnosis and treatment of septic patients is the tremendous heterogeneity of this condition. The vast heterogeneity that characterizes sepsis ranges from the clinical presentation to the biological aspects of the disease. Evidence-based medicine approaches sepsis as a homogenous syndrome and does not consider the individual discrepancies between septic patients. This approach may contribute to the poor outcomes of septic patients. In recent years, personalized medicine has gained significant interest. This novel form of medicine underlines the importance of understanding the genetic, epigenetic, and molecular basis of a disease in order to provide a more tailored approach for the patient. The study of “omics”, such as cytomics, genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics, provides a deeper comprehension of the complex interactions between the host, the disease, and the environment. The aim of this review is to summarize the potential role of a personalized approach in sepsis management, considering the interactions between various “omics”.

Background and Objectives: Acute hematologic malignancies are a group of heterogeneous blood diseases with a high mortality rate, mostly due to acute respiratory failure (ARF). Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is one form of ARF which represents a challenging clinical condition. The paper aims to review current knowledge regarding the variable pathogenic mechanisms, as well as therapeutic options for ARDS in acute hematologic malignancy patients. Data collection: We provide an overview of ARDS in patients with acute hematologic malignancy, from an etiologic perspective. We searched databases such as PubMed or Google Scholar, including articles published until June 2022, using the following keywords: ARDS in hematologic malignancy, pneumonia in hematologic malignancy, drug-induced ARDS, leukostasis, pulmonary leukemic infiltration, pulmonary lysis syndrome, engraftment syndrome, diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, TRALI in hematologic malignancy, hematopoietic stem cell transplant ARDS, radiation pneumonitis. We included relevant research articles, case reports, and reviews published in the last 18 years. Results: The main causes of ARDS in acute hematologic malignancy are: pneumonia-associated ARDS, leukostasis, leukemic infiltration of the lung, pulmonary lysis syndrome, drug-induced ARDS, radiotherapy-induced ARDS, diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, peri-engraftment respiratory distress syndrome, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation-related ARDS, transfusion-related acute lung injury. Conclusions: The short-term prognosis of ARDS in acute hematologic malignancy relies on prompt diagnosis and treatment. Due to its etiological heterogeneity, precision-based strategies should be used to improve overall survival. Future studies should focus on identifying the relevance of such etiologic-based diagnostic strategies in ARDS secondary to acute hematologic malignancy.

Introduction: The implementation of Patient Blood Management (PBM) in cardiac surgery has been shown to be effective in reducing blood transfusions and associated complications, as well as improving patient outcomes. Despite the potential benefits of PBM in cardiac surgery, there are several barriers to its successful implementation. Objectives: The main objectives of this study were to ascertain the impact of the national Romanian PBM recommendations on allogeneic blood product transfusion in cardiac surgery and identify predictors of perioperative packed red blood cell transfusion. Methods: As part of the Romanian national pilot programme of PBM, we performed a single-centre, retrospective study in a tertiary centre of cardiovascular surgery, including patients from two time periods, before and after the implementation of the national recommendations. Using coarsened exact matching, from a total of 1174 patients, 157 patients from the before group were matched to 169 patients in the after group. Finally, we built a multivariate regression model from the entire cohort to analyse independent predictors of PRBC transfusion in the perioperative period. Results: Although there was a trend towards a lower proportion of patients requiring PRBC transfusion in the “after” group compared to the “before” group (44.9%vs. 50.3%), it was not statistically significant. There was a significant difference between the “after” group and the “before” group in terms of fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion rates, with a lower percentage of patients requiring FFP transfusion in the “after” group compared to “before” (14.2%, vs. 22.9%, p = 0.04). This difference was also seen in the total perioperative FFP transfusion (mean transfusion 0.7 units in the “before” group, SD 1.73 vs. 0.38 units in the “after” group, SD 1.05, p = 0.04). In the multivariate regression analysis, age > 64 years (OR 1.652, 95% CI 1.17–2.331, p = 0.004), female sex (OR 2.404, 95% CI 1.655–3.492, p < 0.001), surgery time (OR 1.295, 95% CI 1.126–1.488, p < 0.001), Hb < 13 g/dl (OR 3.611, 95% CI 2.528–5.158, p < 0.001), re-exploration for bleeding (OR 3.988, 95% CI 1.248–12.738, p = 0.020), viscoelastic test use (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.34–3.544, p < 0.001), FFP transfusion (OR 4.023, 95% CI 2.426–6.671, p < 0.001), and use of a standardized pretransfusion checklist (OR 8.875, 95% CI 5.496–14.332, p < 0.001) remained significantly associated with PRBC transfusion. The use of a preoperative standardized haemostasis questionnaire was independently associated with a decreased risk of perioperative PRBC transfusion (0.565, 95% CI 0.371–0.861, p = 0.008). Conclusions: Implementation of national PBM recommendations led to a reduction in FFP transfusion in a cardiac surgery centre. The use of a preoperative standardized haemostasis questionnaire is an independent predictor of a lower risk for PRBC transfusion in this setting.

Background: Liver resection (LR) is the treatment of choice for most benign and malignant focal liver lesions, as well as in selected patients with liver trauma. Few other therapies can compete with LR in selected cases, such as liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and ablative therapies in small HCCs or liver metastases. The present paper analyses a single center experience in LR, reviewing the indications of LR, the operative techniques and their short-term results. Between January 2000 and December 2016, in "œDan Setlacec" Center of General Surgery and Liver Transplantation were performed 3165 LRs in 3016 patients, for pathologic conditions of the liver. In the present series, liver resections for living-donor liver transplantation were excluded. The median age of the patients was 56 years (mean 58 years; range 1-88), with male/female ratio 1524/1492 and adult/pediatric patient ratio 2973/43. Results: Malignant lesions were the main indication for LR (2372 LRs; 74.9%). Among these, colorectal liver metastases were the most frequent indication (952 LRs; 30.1%), followed by hepatocellular carcinoma (575 patients, 18.2%). The highest number of resected tumors per patient was 21, and the median diameter of the largest tumor was 40 mm (mean 51 mm; range 3-250). Major resections rate was 18.6% (588 LRs) and anatomical LRs were performed in 789 patients (24.9%). The median operative time was 180 minutes (mean 204 minutes; range 45-920). The median blood loss was 500 ml (mean 850 ml; range 500-9500), with a transfusion rate of 41.6% (1316 LRs). The morbidity rate was 40.1% (1270 LRs) and the rate of major complications (Dindo-Clavien IIIa or more) was 13.2% (418 LRs). Mortality rate was 4.2% (127 pts). LRs should be performed in specialized high-volume centers to achieve the best results (low morbidity and mortality rates).