Background:Delayed return of gut function after colonic resection is a common impediment to early postoperative recovery. Small clinical studies, combined into meta-analyses, have suggested that intravenous lidocaine can improve return of gut function after colorectal surgery. Objective(s):To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion compared with placebo in return of gut function after elective minimally invasive colonic resection. Design and methods:Multicentre, pragmatic, placebo-controlled, randomised trial with cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting and participants:Twenty-seven hospital sites across the United Kingdom. Adult patients scheduled for elective minimally invasive colon resection were randomised in 1 : 1 ratio to treatment or control groups using a web-based portal, stratified by age, sex and trial site. Interventions:A sterile solution of 2% lidocaine (made isotonic with sodium chloride) and matching placebo (a sterile solution of 0.9% sodium chloride). Participants received an intravenous bolus of study drug/placebo at induction of anaesthesia (1.5 mg/kg ideal body weight) given over 20 minutes, followed by intravenous infusion of 1.5 mg/hour/kg ideal body weight with a maximum rate of 120 mg/hour (6 ml/hour) for a minimum of 6 hours up to a maximum of 12 hours. The planned duration of infusion was determined by the participating unit's availability of postoperative continuous cardiac monitoring. Main outcome measures:Primary outcome: return of gut function at 72 hours postoperatively measured by 'GI-3 recovery' (defined as tolerating diet and passage of flatus or stool). Other outcomes were GI-2 recovery, prolonged postoperative ileus, patient-reported measures of quality of life, recovery and pain, 30- and 90-day mortality, unplanned re-admissions, adverse events, serious adverse events and cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 30 days. Participants, care givers and those assessing the outcomes were blinded to group assignment. Results:The trial enrolled 590 patients (295 interventions, 295 control); after 33 post-randomisation exclusions, 557 patients were included (279 interventions, 278 control). There was no statistically significant or clinically meaningful difference in GI-3 recovery at 72 hours after surgery [160/279 patients (57.3%) for intravenous lidocaine versus 164/278 patients (59%) for placebo (absolute difference 1.9% (-8.0 to 4.2), odds ratio 0.97 (0.88 to 1.07), p = 0.54)]. There was no effect of intravenous lidocaine found in predetermined subgroup analyses (6- vs. 12-hour duration of infusion, right vs. non-right colectomy, sex, age band and enhanced recovery after surgery compliance). There was no evidence of a difference in other measures of gut function return, pain, quality of recovery, quality of life, perioperative complications, length of stay or total healthcare costs. There was no clinical difference between the groups in the usage of anti-emetic drug and postoperative analgesia. The intervention was not cost-effective under National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case criteria. Adverse events were few and evenly distributed between arms. Limitations:For pragmatic reasons, relatively short durations of infusion were delivered in the ALLEGRO trial - we cannot discount the possibility that longer durations might be effective. Conclusions:We found no evidence for benefit from perioperative intravenous lidocaine on return of gut function, nor any other objective patient-reported outcome measure, nor cost-efficiency. Future work:There remains a need for an effective, acceptable, safe and affordable intervention to improve recovery of gut function after minimally invasive colonic surgery. Funding:This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 15/130/95.

Objectives To compare costs, health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of using intravenous lidocaine (bolus given at induction of anaesthesia, followed by infusion for 6–12 hours) during colorectal surgery to improve the return of gastrointestinal function.Design Within-trial planned analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial using an intention-to-treat approach.Setting 27 hospitals from across the UK.Participants 557 patients aged 25–91 having minimally invasive elective colorectal resection.Intervention A 1:1 randomisation between intravenous lidocaine and placebo, minimised for age (<50 years, 50–74 years, ≥75 years), gender, and trial centre.Primary outcome measures Mean differences between trial arms in 30-day and 90-day quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and 30-day total National Health Service costs, as well as the 30-day incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Results Compliance and data quality were high. Intravenous lidocaine is associated with differences of £38 (95% CI: −£463, £589) in total 30-day costs, −0.0005 (95% CI: −0.0027, 0.0015) in 30-day QALYs and −0.0008 (95% CI: −0.0066, 0.0048) in 90-day QALYs. No large, statistically significant or meaningful differences in primary or secondary outcome measures between trial arms were detected, other than for the intervention costs.Conclusion Intravenous lidocaine is not found to impact costs or health outcomes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery. In the absence of a clinical effect, disinvestment from perioperative lidocaine could save costs associated with infusion monitoring.Trial registration number International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number 52352431.

ImportanceDespite the recovery advantages of minimally invasive surgical techniques, delayed return of gut function after colectomy is a common barrier to timely discharge from hospital.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of 2% perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on return of gut function after elective minimally invasive colon resection.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThe ALLEGRO trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial conducted in 27 UK hospitals. A total of 590 adults scheduled for elective minimally invasive colon resection for benign or malignant disease were randomized 1:1 to 2% intravenous lidocaine or saline placebo. Enrollment occurred from August 13, 2018, to April 11, 2023, with a pause in recruitment from March 20, 2020, through July 6, 2020; final follow-up was on August 10, 2023.InterventionsThe intervention patients received 2% intravenous lidocaine administered as 1.5-mg/kg bolus at induction of anesthesia followed by 1.5 mg/kg/h for 6 or 12 hours. Control patients received 0.9% saline placebo for 6 or 12 hours.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients with return of gut function at 72 hours after surgery, defined by the GI-3 composite end point of tolerating diet (ingestion of food and drink without significant nausea or vomiting for 3 consecutive meals) and passage of flatus or stool. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including time to GI-3 recovery, time to GI-2 recovery (tolerance of oral diet and passage of stool), prolonged postoperative ileus, postoperative nausea and vomiting score, Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score, postoperative opioid consumption, Quality of Recovery–15, quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level), enhanced recovery protocol adherence, time to meeting medically defined criteria for discharge, and time to patient self-assessed readiness for discharge.ResultsThe trial enrolled 590 patients (295 intervention, 295 control); after 33 postrandomization exclusions, 557 patients were included (279 intervention, 278 control; 249 female patients [44.7%]; mean [SD] age, 66 [10.9] years); 532 (96%) received the randomized treatment. Return of gut function as defined by the GI-3 composite outcome was achieved at 72 hours by 160 patients (57.3%) in the intravenous lidocaine group vs 164 patients (59.0%) in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference, −1.9% [95% CI, −8.0% to 4.2%]; relative risk, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.07]). There was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in any of the 11 secondary end points.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients undergoing elective minimally invasive colon resection, perioperative administration of 2% intravenous lidocaine did not improve return of gut function at 72 hours.Trial Registrationisrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN52352431

OBJECTIVES:Presbycusis is highly prevalent, affecting between a third and two-thirds of elderly populations. Effective communication between patient and physician has been shown to directly correlate with the quality of patient care. The Reverse Stethoscope Technique (RST) involves placing the earpieces into the patient's ears and speaking into the diaphragm. Here, we aim to show the RST is a simple and effective method to communicate with patients suffering from presbycusis in inpatient settings.METHODS:Medical inpatients aged >60 years old without cognitive impairment were included in the study. A simple repetition exercise of basic English sentences was performed with and without the RST to assess hearing ability. Patients then undertook a short questionnaire.RESULTS:Our study included 109 patients with varied 'self-reported' hearing. 50.5% of our cohort reported past communication difficulties with health-care professionals due to hearing difficulties. We identified that the RST increased the mean number of sentences a patient could repeat from 2.6 to 3.5 representing a statistically significant increase (p < 0.001). The technique was most beneficial for patients with 'okay' and 'poor' hearing. The majority of patients (77/109) also stated the technique reduced background noise. The RST was equally effective with facemasks.CONCLUSION:Current techniques to enhance communication with patients with hearing loss are often underutilized or poorly accessible. Our study identified that the RST is a quick and effective solution that can be easily implemented for patients struggling to communicate with health-care professionals in inpatient scenarios.

Importance Despite the recovery advantages of minimally invasive surgical techniques, delayed return of gut function after colectomy is a common barrier to timely discharge from hospital. Objective To evaluate the effect of 2% perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on return of gut function after elective minimally invasive colon resection. Design, Setting, and Participants The ALLEGRO trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial conducted in 27 UK hospitals. A total of 590 adults scheduled for elective minimally invasive colon resection for benign or malignant disease were randomized 1:1 to 2% intravenous lidocaine or saline placebo. Enrollment occurred from August 13, 2018, to April 11, 2023, with a pause in recruitment from March 20, 2020, through July 6, 2020; final follow-up was on August 10, 2023. Interventions The intervention patients received 2% intravenous lidocaine administered as 1.5-mg/kg bolus at induction of anesthesia followed by 1.5 mg/kg/h for 6 or 12 hours. Control patients received 0.9% saline placebo for 6 or 12 hours. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with return of gut function at 72 hours after surgery, defined by the GI-3 composite end point of tolerating diet (ingestion of food and drink without significant nausea or vomiting for 3 consecutive meals) and passage of flatus or stool. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including time to GI-3 recovery, time to GI-2 recovery (tolerance of oral diet and passage of stool), prolonged postoperative ileus, postoperative nausea and vomiting score, Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score, postoperative opioid consumption, Quality of Recovery-15, quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level), enhanced recovery protocol adherence, time to meeting medically defined criteria for discharge, and time to patient self-assessed readiness for discharge. Results The trial enrolled 590 patients (295 intervention, 295 control); after 33 postrandomization exclusions, 557 patients were included (279 intervention, 278 control; 249 female patients [44.7%]; mean [SD] age, 66 [10.9] years); 532 (96%) received the randomized treatment. Return of gut function as defined by the GI-3 composite outcome was achieved at 72 hours by 160 patients (57.3%) in the intravenous lidocaine group vs 164 patients (59.0%) in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -8.0% to 4.2%]; relative risk, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.07]). There was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in any of the 11 secondary end points. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients undergoing elective minimally invasive colon resection, perioperative administration of 2% intravenous lidocaine did not improve return of gut function at 72 hours. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN52352431

Background Return of gastrointestinal (GI) function is fundamental to patient recovery after colorectal surgery and is required before patients can be discharged from hospital safely. Up to 40% of patients suffer delayed return of GI function after colorectal surgery, causing nausea, vomiting and abdominal discomfort, resulting in longer hospital stay. Small, randomised studies have suggested perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine, which has analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects, may accelerate return of GI function after colorectal surgery. The ALLEGRO trial is a pragmatic effectiveness study to assess the benefit of perioperative IV lidocaine in improving return of GI function after elective minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) colorectal surgery. Methods United Kingdom (UK) multi-centre double blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial in 562 patients undergoing elective minimally invasive colorectal resection. IV lidocaine or placebo will be infused for 6–12 h commencing at the start of surgery as an adjunct to usual analgesic/anaesthetic technique. The primary outcome will be return of GI function. Discussion A 6–12-h perioperative intravenous infusion of 2% lidocaine is a cheap addition to usual anaesthetic/analgesic practice in elective colorectal surgery with a low incidence of adverse side-effects. If successful in achieving quicker return of gut function for more patients, it would reduce the rate of postoperative ileus and reduce the duration of inpatient recovery, resulting in reduced pain and discomfort with faster recovery and discharge from hospital. Since colorectal surgery is a common procedure undertaken in every acute hospital in the UK, a reduced length of stay and reduced rate of postoperative ileus would accrue significant cost savings for the National Health Service (NHS). Trial registration EudraCT Number 2017-003835-12; REC Number 17/WS/0210 the trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN52352431 ); date of registration 13 June 2018; date of enrolment of first participant 14 August 2018.

Background In 2010, a national enquiry into elderly patient outcomes after surgery identified that only 36% received 'good' care. Guidance was subsequently published by the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland regarding perioperative care of the elderly and those with dementia; this study aims to assess current adherence to these guidelines in anaesthetic departments across Scotland. Methods A web-based survey was sent to all Scottish departments. The questions assessed department patient demographic, access to specialist pre-assessment services, availability of multidisciplinary input, perioperative care of patients with cognitive impairment and departmental training on geriatric perioperative care. Results Responses were collected from November-December 2020 with a 92.6% response rate. A total of 64% of departments stated that > 50% of their workload involved patients over 75. One department had a lead clinician for geriatric anaesthesia, whilst 20% could access a geriatric specialist when coordinating perioperative care. Specialist geriatric pre-assessment services operate in 20% of centres. A total of 60% of respondents used a clinical frailty score when pre-assessing patients over 75, with 48% specifically screening for cognitive impairment. The vast majority of centres, 76%, did not routinely provide information regarding post-operative delirium and 24% 'never or very rarely' invite caregivers to accompany patients with dementia into the department. Education sessions regarding perioperative elderly care had occurred in 56% of departments. Conclusions Elderly patients represent a significant proportion of anaesthetic workload in Scotland. Despite this, adherence to recommended practice is low. The vast majority of centres lack access to specialist multidisciplinary input or specialist pre-assessment services which are essential to providing good care. Reported screening for frailty and cognitive impairment is variable, with opportunities for improvement in communication and education (patient and clinician) surrounding these conditions.

Central neuraxial anaesthesia and sedation (CNA+Sed) for lower limb free-tissue transfer (LLFTT) surgery is an established technique in our unit with excellent patient reported experiences [1] Unplanned conversion to general anaesthesia is undesirable, albeit unavoidable in certain situations, with an unclear incidence in orthopaedic patients Methods We reviewed a single consultant's series of 85 consecutive LLFTT orthoplastic operations performed under CNA+Sed since 2007 to present The cases were analysed prospectively, learning points extracted and technique modified accordingly Results All procedures, but one, were performed for osteomyelitis, the majority of FTTs (69%) being to the contralateral leg Procedures took up to 14 5 h with a mean of 8 8 h All free flaps, but one, were successful All 85 CNAs were performed or supervised by the same anaesthetist Two cases required general anaesthesia in the anaesthetic room (AR): in one, epidural anaesthesia (EA) was abandoned after three bloody taps and replaced by general anaesthesia and nerve blocks;in the other - the patient requested general anaesthesia due to anxiety after the combined spinal-epidural (CSE) was sited Of the remaining 83 cases, there were four (4 8%) unplanned theatre conversions to general anaesthesia Our initial technique was CSE due to perceived benefits of fast onset of CNA In the first stage of the technique evolution (17 CSEs), there were three (17 6%) unplanned general anaesthesia conversions Case 1 developed a cough during microsurgery In cases 2 and 3, EA was insufficient once the spinal had worn off After three conversions, we moved from CSE to EA in 2009, with only one further unplanned theatre conversion in the remaining 66 cases in the studied series (1 5%) Case 4 became hypertensive and bradycardic during microsurgery, complaining of stiffness and back pain;the physiological parameters settled under general anaesthesia Discussion Prolonged orthoplastic procedures can be compared to long haul flights A good bilateral EA is necessary for a smooth flight Unplanned general anaesthesia conversions are particularly undesirable in the current COVID-19 era, while at the same time COVID-19 has highlighted the additional benefits of CNA wherever possible [2] As part of informed consent, patients are warned of the risk of conversion to general anaesthesia for patient, surgeon or anaesthetic reasons This series charts the evolution of our technique of choice Our experience of unplanned conversions has encouraged us to abandon the spinal component of CNA+Sed and use EA+Sed, with demonstrable quality improvement

BACKGROUND:Postoperative delirium is a major complication associated with anaesthesia and surgery, more commonly seen in older people.AIMS:The aims of this study were to explore the knowledge and understanding of anaesthetists and nurses involved in anaesthesia through their responses to two case scenarios of postoperative delirium experienced by older people.METHODS:A 30-item online survey was sent to 500 potential respondents.RESULTS:Two hundred and twenty-six practitioners from Australia, New Zealand and Scotland responded. Most had no workplace protocols for anaesthesia planning in older people. There was substantial variability in practice in relation to postoperative delirium screening, detection, prevention and management.CONCLUSIONS:Improvements in education and awareness, together with a more coherent approach, for example, as recommended in the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guidelines, could help to reduce the impact of postoperative delirium in older people. This should be combined with ongoing research into perioperative optimisation of detection, prevention and management of postoperative delirium.

A best evidence topic was constructed using a described protocol. The three-part question addressed was: In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, does intravenous lidocaine exert a cardioprotective effect against postoperative myocardial ischaemia and reperfusion injury? Using the reported search, 461 papers were found, of which 5 studies represented the best evidence to answer the question. In 3 studies, lidocaine was associated with a postoperative fall in biomarkers of myocardial injury. An additional study lacked power, but the difference in biomarkers was marginally non-significant with a trend in favour of lidocaine. A final study evaluating ischaemic changes on continuous and 12 lead ECG found no benefit with lidocaine. The limited evidence suggests that lidocaine may be cardioprotective, although no study has demonstrated improvement in clinical outcomes. Furthermore, all trials were small studies with a multitude of dosing regimens in heterogenous patient populations. There is insufficient data to correlate dose with effect and not all studies measured plasma lidocaine concentration. The narrow therapeutic index and our current evidence base does not support lidocaine prophylaxis.

Growing evidence suggests that intravenous lidocaine as a component of multimodal analgesia improves recovery after major colorectal surgery. There is little published data regarding ideal dosing and target plasma concentration in this context, and we wanted to establish our dosing schedule was safe by measuring blood levels of lidocaine.

Return of normal gastrointestinal (GI) function is a critical determinant of recovery after colorectal surgery. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine benefits return of gastrointestinal function after colorectal resection.

Ageing populations have greater incidences of dementia. People with dementia present for emergency and, increasingly, elective surgery, but are poorly served by the lack of available guidance on their peri-operative management, particularly relating to pharmacological, medico-legal, environmental and attitudinal considerations. These guidelines seek to deliver such guidance, by providing information for peri-operative care providers about dementia pathophysiology, specific difficulties anaesthetising patients with dementia, medication interactions, organisational and medico-legal factors, pre-, intra- and postoperative care considerations, training, sources of further information and care quality improvement tools.