Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Pregnant women with Marfan syndrome (MS) have a high risk of aortic dissection around delivery and their optimal management requires a multi-disciplinary approach, including proper cardio-obstetric care and adequate pain management during labor, which may be difficult due to the high prevalence of dural ectasia (DE) in these patients.

Objectives: To evaluate the multidisciplinary management of MS patients during labor.

Methods: Nineteen pregnant women (31 pregnancies) with MS were followed by a multi-disciplinary team (cardiologist, obstetrician, anesthesiologist) prior to delivery.

Results:^. Two patients had kyphoscoliosis; none had previous spine surgery nor complaints compatible with DE. In eight pregnancies (7 patients), aortic root diameter (ARd) before pregnancy was 40 to 46 mm. In this high-risk group, one patient underwent elective termination, two underwent an urgent cesarean section (CS) under general anesthesia, and five had elective CS; two under general anesthesia (GA), and three under spinal anesthesia. In 23 pregnancies (12 patients), ARd was < 40 mm. In this non-high-risk group three pregnancies (1 patient) were electively terminated. Of the remaining 20 deliveries (11 patients), 14 were vaginal deliveries, 9 with epidural analgesia and 5 without. Six patients had a CS; four under GA and two2 under spinal anesthesia. There were no epidural placement failures and no failed responses. There were 2 cases of aortic dissection, unrelated to the anesthetic management.

Conclusions: The optimal anesthetic strategy during labor in MS patients should be decided by a multi-disciplinary team. Anesthetic complications due to DE were not encountered during neuraxial block

Background: Pain following brain surgery is a significant problem. Infiltration of the scalp with local intradermal anesthetics was suggested for postoperative pain control but was assessed only in the first hour postoperatively.

Objectives: To evaluate wound infiltration with a single dose of metamizol (dipyrone) for postoperative pain control in patients undergoing awake craniotomy.

Methods: This open, prospective, non-randomized observational study, conducted in anesthesiology and neurosurgical departments of a teaching hospital, included 40 patients undergoing awake craniotomy for the removal of brain tumor. Intraoperative anesthesia included wound infiltration with lidocaine and bupivacaine, conscious sedation using remifentanil and propofol, and a single dose of metamizol (dipyrone) for postoperative pain control. Outcome was assessed by the Numerical Pain Scale on arrival at the postoperative care unit, and 2, 4 and 12 hours after the end of surgery.

Results: On arrival at the postoperative care unit, patients reported NPS[1] scores of 1.2 ± 1.1 in a scale of 0–10 (mean ± SD) (median = 1, range 0–4). The scores were 0.8 ± 0.9, 0.9 ± 0.9, and 1 ± 0.9 at 2 hours, 4 hours, and 12 hours after the end of surgery, respectively. Based on patients' complaints and NPS lower then 3, 27 patients did not require any supplementary analgesia during the first 12 postoperative hours, 11 patients required a single dose of oral metamizol or intramuscular diclofenac, one patient was given 2 mg of intravenous morphine, and one patient required two separate doses of metamizol.

Conclusions: Although the clinical setup prevents the use of placebo local analgesia as a control group, the results suggest the possible role of local intradermal infiltration of the scalp combined with a single dose of metamizol to control postoperative pain in patients undergoing craniotomy.

Objectives: To validate and evaluate the reliability and realism of incorporating simulation-based OSCE into the Israeli Board Examination in Anesthesia.

Methods: Validation was performed before the exam regarding Content Validity using the modified Delphi technique by members of the Task Force of the Israeli Board Examination Committee in Anesthesiology.

Results: The examination has been administered six times in the past 3 years to a total of 145 examinees. The pass rate ranged from 62% (trauma) to 91% (regional anesthesia). The mean inter-rater correlations for the total score (all items), for the Critical checklist items score, and for the Global (General) rating were 0.89, 0.86 and 0.76, respectively. The inter-correlations between the five OSCE stations scores were significant (P < 0.01) only between Trauma & Ventilation for the Total score (r = 0.32, n=63), and between Resuscitation & Regional and OR-crisis for the Global score (r = 0.42 and 0.27, n=64 and 104, respectively). The correlation between the OSCE examination score and the success rate at each of the eight different clinical domains of the oral board examination did not reach statistical significance. Most participants (70–90%) found the difficulty level of the examination stations reasonable to very easy. All major errors, which were identified in the initial two exam periods, disappeared later in the next two exam periods.

Conclusions: The exam has gradually progressed from being an optional part of the oral board examination to a prerequisite component of this test. Other anesthesiology programs or medical professions can adopt the model described here.

With chemical warfare becoming an imminent threat, medical systems need to be prepared to treat the resultant mass casualties. Medical preparedness should not be limited to the triage and logistics of mass casualties and first-line treatment, but should include knowledge and training covering the whole medical spectrum. In view of the unique characteristics of chemical warfare casualties the use of simulation-assisted medical training is highly appropriate. Our objective was to explore the potential of simulator-based teaching to train medical teams in the treatment of chemical warfare casualties. The training concept integrates several types of skill-training simulators, including high tech and low tech simulators as well as standardized simulated patients in a specialized simulated setting. The combined use of multi-simulation modalities makes this maverick program an excellent solution for the challenge of multidisciplinary training in the face of the looming chemical warfare threat.