Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is an important clinical problem. Prospective studies of the incidence, characteristics and risk factors of CPSP are needed. The objective of this study is to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of CPSP. A multicentre, prospective, observational trial. Twenty-one hospitals in 11 European countries. Three thousand one hundred and twenty patients undergoing surgery and enrolled in the European registry PAIN OUT. Pain-related outcome was evaluated on the first postoperative day (D1) using a standardised pain outcome questionnaire. Review at 6 and 12 months via e-mail or telephonic interview used the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the DN4 (Douleur Neuropathique four questions). Primary endpoint was the incidence of moderate to severe CPSP (numeric rating scale, NRS ≥3/10) at 12 months. For 1044 and 889 patients, complete data were available at 6 and 12 months. At 12 months, the incidence of moderate to severe CPSP was 11.8% (95% CI 9.7 to 13.9) and of severe pain (NRS ≥6) 2.2% (95% CI 1.2 to 3.3). Signs of neuropathic pain were recorded in 35.4% (95% CI 23.9 to 48.3) and 57.1% (95% CI 30.7 to 83.4) of patients with moderate and severe CPSP, respectively. Functional impairment (BPI) at 6 and 12 months increased with the severity of CPSP (P < 0.01) and presence of neuropathic characteristics (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified orthopaedic surgery, preoperative chronic pain and percentage of time in severe pain on D1 as risk factors. A 10% increase in percentage of time in severe pain was associated with a 30% increase of CPSP incidence at 12 months. The collection of data on CPSP was feasible within the European registry PAIN OUT. The incidence of moderate to severe CPSP at 12 months was 11.8%. Functional impairment was associated with CPSP severity and neuropathic characteristics. Risk factors for CPSP in the present study were chronic preoperative pain, orthopaedic surgery and percentage of time in severe pain on D1. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01467102.

Introduction: COVID-19 (Coronavirus-19 disease), a new clinical entity caused by SARS-COV-2 infection, could explain the physiopathology of cervicothoracic air collections (pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, and subcutaneous emphysema). Material and Methods: We conducted an 8-months retrospective analysis of a single-center SARS-CoV-2 cases associating pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, and subcutaneous emphysema, either alone or combined. Results: All non-intubated patients with the complications cited above had a favorable outcome after pleural drainage, percutaneous drainage, and/or conservative treatment, while the intubated patients, with multiple comorbidities, have had an unfavorable outcome, regardless the chosen treatment. Pleural drainage was used for pneumothorax cases; pneumomediastinum with subcutaneous emphysema required insertion of subcutaneous needles or angio-catheters with manual decompressive massage. Conservative methods of treatment were used for patients with pneumomediastinum and medium or severe respiratory disfunction. Conclusions: Etiopathogenic classification of pneumothorax should include SARS-CoV-2 infection as a possible cause of secondary spontaneous pneumothorax due to COVID-19 pneumonia. Survival rate after the occurrence of these complications was small (18,75%), 4 of the patients were cured, 2 had a favorable outcome and 26 have died. Pleural drainage which is mandatory to do for patients with pneumothorax complication in COVID -19 pneumonia, doesn't change the prognosis for those with severe affecting lungs, because the prolonged ventilation and the other comorbidities have led to death in most of these cases.

Background and Objectives: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a prevalent sleep-disordered breathing pathology with significant clinical consequences, including increased cardiovascular risk and cognitive decline. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the gold-standard treatment, but alternative strategies are sometimes needed for patients intolerant to CPAP. Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) is a key diagnostic tool for assessing upper airway obstruction in OSA patients and subsequently tailoring a surgical approach, with sedation protocols playing a crucial role in its efficacy and results accuracy. This study aimed to investigate the effect of adding remifentanil to a propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) regimen on the sedation parameters and procedural outcomes of DISE. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted at the Central University and Emergency Military Hospital “Dr. Carol Davila” and Ria Clinic in Bucharest between July 2021 and October 2023. Thirty-one patients were enrolled and randomised into two groups: a propofol group (P group, n= 11) and a remifentanil-propofol group (R-P group, n = 20). DISE was performed using standardised protocols, sedative drugs were administered in TCI mode, and data on sedation levels, respiratory and cardiovascular parameters, and procedural incidents were collected. Results: The addition of remifentanil at 1 ng/mL effect-site concentration significantly reduced the effect-site concentration of propofol required for adequate sedation (3.4 ± 0.7 µg/mL in the P group vs. 2.8 ± 0.6 µg/mL in the R-P group, p = 0.035). The time to achieve adequate sedation was also shorter in the R-P group (7.1 ± 2.5 min vs. 9.5 ± 2.7 min, p = 0.017). The incidence of cough, hypoxemia, and cardiovascular events did not significantly differ between the two groups. Conclusions: Adding remifentanil to a propofol TCI regimen for DISE effectively reduces the required propofol effect-site concentration and shortens sedation time without increasing the risk of adverse events. This combination may enhance the safety and efficiency of DISE, offering a promising alternative for patients undergoing this procedure.

Background: Optimizing sedative techniques for drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) enhances accuracy and reproducibility in tailoring treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The Schnider and Eleveld pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) models, which predict propofol concentration in effect-site compartment based on patient-specific parameters, were utilized to guide intravenous sedation in this study. We compared the effectiveness of propofol sedation guided by the novel general-purpose Eleveld model versus the Schnider model using target-controlled infusion (TCI) systems. Methods: We investigated twenty-five adult OSA patients, randomized into two groups: the Schnider model group (n = 12) and the Eleveld model group (n = 13). DISE was conducted following standardized protocols, targeting effect-site concentration TCI mode. Data concerning sedation levels, effect-site concentration of propofol, procedural timing, propofol dosages, respiratory and cardiovascular parameters, and any procedural incidents were collected. Results: DISE was performed successfully in all enrolled patients from both groups. A significant difference was observed in the effect-site concentration of propofol (CeP) at the moment of endoscopy between the Eleveld and Schnider groups (2.1 ± 0.4 µg/mL vs. 3.3 ± 0.7 µg/mL, respectively; p < 0.001). The E group also demonstrated a shorter time to attain the optimal sedation plane compared to the S group (6.1 ± 1.7 vs. 9.8 ± 2.2 min, respectively; p < 0.001) and a reduced total procedural time (11.2 ± 1.4 vs. 15.0 ± 2.1 min, respectively; p < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was comparable between groups. Conclusions: The Eleveld model demonstrated a shorter time to achieve the optimal sedation plane, a shorter total procedural time, and a significant difference in effect-site concentration at the time of endoscopy compared to the Schnider model. The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the two groups, suggesting that the Eleveld model may offer improved efficiency without compromising safety during DISE.

Background/Objectives: Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) is used in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) to visualize dynamic upper airway collapse, but sedation protocols vary widely with no consensus on the optimal agent or technique. This narrative review aims to clarify current sedation strategies for DISE in OSA and their clinical implications. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for English-language publications on DISE sedation (2000–2025). Relevant clinical studies, guidelines, and reviews were included. Data were qualitatively synthesized due to heterogeneity among studies. Results: Sedation approaches in DISE varied considerably. Propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam were the primary agents identified. Propofol provided rapid, titratable sedation but increased airway collapsibility at higher doses; dexmedetomidine produced a more natural sleep-like state with minimal respiratory depression; midazolam was less favored due to prolonged effects. Use of target-controlled infusion (TCI) and pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic (PK–PD) models improved control of propofol sedation. Co-sedative adjuncts (e.g., opioids) reduced the required sedative dose but added risk of respiratory depression. Careful titration to the lowest effective dose-often guided by bispectral index (BIS) monitoring—was emphasized to achieve adequate sedation without artifactual airway collapse. No universal DISE sedation protocol was identified. Conclusions: Optimal DISE sedation balances adequate depth with patient safety to ensure reliable findings. Using the minimum effective dose, guided by objective monitoring (e.g., BIS), is recommended. There is a need for standardized sedation protocols and further research (e.g., in obese patients) to resolve current controversies and improve DISE’s utility in OSA management.