A Comparison of Local Infiltration Analgesia and PECS II Block for Analgesia in Mastectomy with Axillary Dissection—A Randomised Equivalence Study

Objective: Various analgesic techniques can be used for a mastectomy with axillary dissection with varying degrees of efficacy. In our institution, local anaesthesia infiltration (LIA) is commonly performed by surgeons. In this study, we hypothesise that the relatively novel PECS II block is equivalent to the analgesic profile of LIA. Methodology: In this single center, prospective, randomised control trial, 40 patients undergoing unilateral mastectomy with axillary dissection were randomly assigned to receive either 30 ml 0.5% ropivacaine before skin via LIA by a specialist breast surgeon during surgery or 30 ml 0.5% ropivacaine via PECS II block, before skin incision. Fentanyl was used as rescue analgesia intraoperatively, and all patients received morphine via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device postoperatively. The primary outcome was the difference in total morphine consumption in 24 hours between the 2 groups after surgery with equivalency set at ±1 mg. Secondary outcomes included time to rescue analgesia after block administration, post-operative pain score over 24 hours, adverse effects encountered, total intraoperative opioid usage, effect on operative time, block performance time as well as block and surgery related complications. Results: Unadjusted mean PCA morphine consumption over 24 hours post-operatively comparing local infiltration analgesia (LIA) to that of PECS II at 95% confidence interval was -1.22 mg (95% CI: -3.77, 1.33). Total IV Fentanyl use comparing LIA to PECS II was 2.53 ± 0.98 mcg/kg and 1.96 ± 0.57 mcg, P = 0.035. There were no other significant differences in the secondary outcome. Conclusion: We conclude there is a lack of equivalence between that of LIA and PECS II block, with the PECS II block providing superior analgesia.

Headaches Associated with N95 Mask Usage amongst Healthcare Workers in Operating Theatres during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction: N95 respirator masks are a cornerstone in the fight against the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. However, its use has side effects such as headaches. The primary aim of this study is to identify factors that may contribute to higher occurrences of headaches with wearing N95 masks. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted across healthcare providers in operating theatres of a tertiary hospital based in Singapore involved in the care of COVID-19 patients. The study involved a self-administered online questionnaire completed by all participants. Results: 176 participants were included into the study, of which 65 (36.9%) reported headaches associated with wearing N95 masks. Out of the 65 participants who experienced headaches, 28 (43.1%) reported experiencing “mild” headache, 30 (46.2%) reported experiencing “moderate” headache, and 7 (10.7%) reported experiencing “severe” headache. 44 participants (67.7%) reported that the headache has affected their work, and 20 participants (30.8%) required analgesia to relieve the headaches. Other symptoms associated with N95 mask usage include skin damage (12.3%), breathlessness (15.4%), giddiness (6.2%), nausea (6.2%) and ear pain (3.1%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that participants younger than 32 years old (p = 0.001) and history of pre-existing headache disorders (p = 0.001) were associated with higher occurrences of headaches with wearing N95 masks. Conclusion: Our study showed that younger age and history of pre-existing headache disorders contribute to higher occurrences of headaches with N95 mask usage. These associations could be useful in identifying at-risk individuals so that precautions may be taken to reduce the occurrence of headaches when wearing N95 masks.

An Audit of the Emergency Airway Service in a Regional Hospital in Singapore

Background: Emergency endotracheal intubations (EEI) performed outside of operating theatre (OT) tend to be more challenging and associated with higher risk of complications. In 2011, with the objective of improving patient outcomes, we set up an Emergency Airway Service (EAS) at our 1000-bed regional hospital, with the aim of providing specialized assistance for outside of OT difficult airway management. Method: A retrospective audit of EAS activation from 12/9/2016 and 27/10/2020 was conducted. EAS forms and electronic medical records were reviewed. We collected information on patient characteristics, EAS activation characteristics and its outcomes. Descriptive analysis method was used to present the collected data. Results: There were a total of 275 activations, of which 268 were analysed. Reasons for activation were anticipated difficult intubation (42.2% n = 113), failed intubation attempt (52.6%, n = 141) and advanced intubation equipment required (5.2% n = 14). Intubation was attempted in 261/268 (97.4%) cases by the EAS team. Of these, 255 (97.7%) cases were successful while 6 (2.3%) cases failed intubation. Of the successful intubations by the EAS team, 208/255 (81.5%) were successful on the first attempt. Out of the 6 unsuccessful intubation cases, 1 case required a rescue cricothyroidotomy and 4 cases required an open tracheostomy. Intubation was deemed easy by the EAS team in 170/261 (65.1%) cases. 64/170 (37.6%) cases were intubated with a video laryngoscope (VL). There were 85 cases (32.3%) classified as difficult intubation by the EAS specialist, 13/85 (15.3%) were intubated using only VL, 54/85 (63.5%) cases were intubated using VL with style/bougie. Conclusion: Audit results showed that providing an experienced and well-equipped team of airway specialists round-the-clock to assist in difficult and potentially difficult endotracheal intubations is justifiable and may reduce complications associated with EEI.