Intraocular pressure occurring during the Trendelenburg position may be a risk for postoperative visual loss and other ocular complications. Intraocular pressure (IOP) higher than 21 mmHg poses a risk for ocular impairment causing several conditions such as glaucoma, detached retina, and postoperative vision loss. Many factors might play a role in IOP increase, like peak expiratory pressure (PIP), mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), end-tidal CO₂ (ETCO₂) and surgical duration and some others (anaesthetic and neuromuscular blockade depth) contribute by reducing IOP during procedures requiring both pneumoperitoneum and steep Trendelenburg position (25–45° head-down tilt). Despite transient visual field loss after surgery, no signs of ischemia or changes to the retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) have been shown after surgery. Over the years, several studies have been conducted to control and prevent IOPs intraoperative increase. Multiple strategies have been proposed by different authors over the years to reduce IOP during laparoscopic procedures, especially those involving steep Trendelenburg positions such as robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), and abdominal and pelvic procedures. These strategies included both positional and pharmacological strategies.

Recent literature suggests that the withdrawal of remifentanil (RF) infusion can be associated with hyperalgesia in clinical and nonclinical settings. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with cross-over design, to assess the effect of discontinuing RF infusion on pain intensity and areas of hyperalgesia and allodynia in healthy volunteers. Nine studies were included. The intervention treatment consisted in RF infusion that was compared with placebo (saline solution). The primary outcome was pain intensity assessment at 30 ± 15 minutes after RF or placebo discontinuation, assessed by any pain scale and using any quantitative sensory testing. Moreover, postwithdrawal pain scores were compared with baseline scores in each treatment. Secondary outcomes included the areas (% of basal values) of hyperalgesia and allodynia. Subjects during RF treatment reported higher pain scores after discontinuation than during treatment with placebo [standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.97; P = 0.04, I² = 71%]. A significant decrease in pain scores, compared with baseline values, was found in the placebo treatment (SMD: −0.87, 95% CI: −1.61 to −0.13; P = 0.02, I² = 87%), but not in the RF treatment (SMD: −0.28, 95% CI: −1.18 to 0.62; P = 0.54, I² = 91%). The area of hyperalgesia was larger after RF withdrawal (SMD: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.27-0.84; P = 0.001; I² = 0%). The area of allodynia did not vary between treatments. These findings suggest that the withdrawal of RF induces a mild but nonclinically relevant degree of hyperalgesia in HVs, likely linked to a reduced pain threshold.

The role of postreperfusion lactate clearance in assessing graft function has not yet been investigated. The aim of this study was to examine whether lactate clearance, assessed in the postreperfusion phase, can predict poor graft function in liver transplant patients. Seventy patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) were enrolled. Standardized anesthesia and intraoperative monitoring were applied. The lactate levels measured immediately after venous reperfusion and six hours later were used to calculate lactate clearance by the following formula: [(reperfusion lactate - 6 h post-reperfusion lactate)/reperfusion lactate] ×100. Student's t-test was performed to evaluate differences in lactate clearance between patients with good and poor graft function. Logistic regression was used to assess predictors of poor graft function. Postreperfusion lactate clearance was lower in patients with poor graft function compared to those with good graft function (P=0.0007). Logistic regression showed that postreperfusion lactate clearance may represent an early predictor of poor graft function (area under receiver operating characteristic curve =0.83). A lactate clearance cut-off of 59.7% was found (90% sensitivity, 38.3% specificity). Postreperfusion lactate clearance may be useful for the early identification of poor graft function after LT. In patients with lactate clearance <59.7%, it could be useful to search for the underlying cause of poor graft function.

Background: Laparoscopic bariatric surgery provides many benefits including lower postoperative pain scores, reduced opioid consumption, shorter hospital stays, and improved quality of recovery. However, the anaesthetic management of obese patients requires caution in determining postoperative risk and in planning adequate postoperative pathways. Currently, there are no specific indications for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in this surgical population and most decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. The aim of this study is to investigate whether Obesity Surgery Mortality Risk Score (OS-MRS) is able to predict ICU admission in patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery (LBS). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data of patients who underwent LBS during a 2-year period (2017–2019). The collected data included demographics, comorbidities and surgery-related variables. Postoperative ICU admission was decided via bariatric anaesthesiologists’ evaluations, based on the high risk of postoperative cardiac or respiratory complications. Anaesthesia protocol was standardized. Logistic regression was used for statistical analysis. Results: ICU admission was required in 2% (n = 15) of the 763 patients. The intermediate risk group of the OS-MRS was detected in 84% of patients, while the American Society of Anaesthesiologists class III was reported in 80% of patients. A greater OS-MRS (p = 0.01), advanced age (p = 0.04), male gender (p = 0.001), longer duration of surgery (p = 0.0001), increased number of patient comorbidities (p = 0.002), and previous abdominal surgeries (p = 0.003) were predictive factors for ICU admission. Conclusions: ICU admission in obese patients undergoing LBS is predicted by OS-MRS together with age, male gender, number of comorbidities, previous abdominal surgeries, and duration of surgery.

The risk/benefit ratio of using prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) to correct coagulation defects in patients with end-stage liver disease is still unclear. The primary aim of this review was to assess the clinical effectiveness of PCCs in reducing transfusion requirements in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT). This systematic review of non-randomized clinical trials was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The protocol was previously registered (PROSPERO:CRD42022357627). The primary outcome was the mean number of transfused units for each blood product, including red blood cells (RBCs), fresh frozen plasma, platelets, and cryoprecipitate. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of arterial thrombosis, acute kidney injury, and haemodialysis, and hospital and intensive care unit length of stay. There were 638 patients from 4 studies considered for meta-analysis. PCC use did not affect blood product transfusions. Sensitivity analysis, including only four-factor PCC, showed a significant reduction of RBC effect size (MD: 2.06; 95%CI: 1.27–2.84) with no true heterogeneity. No significant differences in secondary outcomes were detected. Preliminary evidence indicated a lack of PCC efficacy in reducing blood product transfusions during LT, but further investigation is needed. In particular, future studies should be tailored to establish if LT patients will likely benefit from four-factor PCC therapy.

Background: Visual impairment in terms of reduced visual acuity and “visual loss” has been reported as an atypical symptom in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the cumulative incidence of “visual loss” during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and review the current evidence regarding “visual loss” caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for relevant studies published that clearly described “vision loss” and SARS-CoV-2 infection. All studies reporting concomitant “vision loss” and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Meta-analyses were conducted using the measurement of risk and a 95% confidence interval for each study. Results: Our search identified 1143 manuscripts published in the English language. After study screening, twenty-nine articles were selected: two cross-sectional studies, twenty-four case reports, and three case series. A random-effect meta-analysis demonstrated that the pooled “visual loss” cumulative incidence in COVID-19 patients was 0.16 (95% CI 0.12–0.21). The quality rating of the cross-sectional studies averaged four out of the maximum score on the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Conclusions: COVID-19 infection might cause “visual loss”. Even if the current evidence is limited, ophthalmological assessment should be promptly provided to all patients experiencing visual impairment symptoms during SARS-CoV-2 infection.