All Publications

  • Ultrasound Verification of Laparoscopic-Assisted Transversus Abdominis Plane Blocks in Children Undergoing Laparoscopic Procedures. Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A Taylor, J. S., Ramamurthi, R. J., Austin, J., Gibson, M., Diyaolu, M., Munshey, F., McFadyen, G., Tsui, B., Chao, S. D. 1800


    Purpose: Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks have been demonstrated to decrease postoperative pain; however, laparoscopic-assisted TAP (L-TAP) blocks have not been well studied in children. Our study utilized intraoperative ultrasound to verify whether surgeon-administered blocks using only laparoscopic visualization were reliably delivered into the correct plane. Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures were enrolled to receive L-TAP blocks. Preblock and postblock ultrasounds were performed to document the plane of local anesthetic delivery. Ultrasound images were reviewed by two blinded anesthesiologists to determine whether the L-TAP block was administered into the desired plane. Results: Fifty-one patients were enrolled. The average age was 5.9 years (range: 2 days to 17 years) and the mean weight was 25.4kg (range: 2.64-118.8kg). The most common procedures were inguinal hernia repair (n=19), appendectomy (n=10), and gastrostomy-tube placements (n=13). Nine surgeons performed 93L-TAP blocks (average: 10.3 blocks/surgeon). Ultrasound confirmed distribution in the correct plane in 53.5/93 blocks (57.5%; 58.0% for attending surgeons), with 77.4% concurrence between the anesthesiologist reviewers. Conclusion: L-TAP achieves delivery of local anesthetic into the correct tissue plane in over half the cases with minimal training. Further studies are needed to examine the effect of L-TAP blocks on reducing postoperative pain in pediatric patients.

    View details for DOI 10.1089/lap.2020.0994

    View details for PubMedID 34962162

  • Small surgeries, big smiles: using virtual reality to reduce the need for sedation or general anesthesia during minor surgical procedures. Pediatric surgery international Taylor, J. S., Chandler, J. M., Menendez, M., Diyaolu, M., Austin, J. R., Gibson, M. L., Portelli, K. I., Caruso, T. J., Rodriguez, S., Chao, S. D. 2021


    PURPOSE: Children often require anesthesia for simple diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using virtual reality (VR) to reduce sedation in children undergoing minor surgical procedures.METHOD: In this prospective, non-randomized clinical trial, pediatric patients at a free-standing children's hospital undergoing hormone implant placement, removal, or exchange were recruited to use VR and local anesthesia instead of procedural sedation or general anesthesia (GA). Patients were enrolled between November 2017 and March 2020, and were compared to historic controls who underwent similar procedures without VR between April 2016 and February 2020. Primary outcome measure was successful procedure completion without sedation or GA. Secondary measures included assessments of pain, fear and anxiety, patient compliance, procedural and recovery times.RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients underwent 29 procedures with VR. Hormone implants (72%), removals (7%), or exchanges (21%) were completed without GA, sedation or IV placement. Procedure lengths and pain scores were similar between VR patients and historic controls, but recovery times were significantly shorter in VR patients (18 vs 65min, p<0.001). Participant satisfaction scores were high, with 95% recommending VR to others.CONCLUSIONS: VR is a feasible alternative to sedation or GA for select pediatric patients undergoing minor surgical procedures.

    View details for DOI 10.1007/s00383-021-04955-6

    View details for PubMedID 34269867

  • Re: JSLS. 2020;24(3);e2020.00032. DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2020.00032. Laparoscopic Posterior versus Lateral Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Gynecology. JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons Austin, J. R., Chao, S. D. 2021; 25 (2)

    View details for DOI 10.4293/JSLS.2021.00014

    View details for PubMedID 34248329

  • Laparoscopic versus ultrasound-guided visualization of transversus abdominis plane blocks. Journal of pediatric surgery Diyaolu, M., Taylor, J., Austin, J., Gibson, M., Ramamurthi, R. J., Tsui, B., Chao, S. 2021


    BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided (US) transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is commonly utilized as part of a multi-modal approach for postoperative pain management. This study seeks to determine whether laparoscopic-guided TAP blocks are as effective as US-guided TAP blocks among pediatric patients.METHOD: In this prospective, randomized controlled trial, pediatric patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures were randomly assigned to one of two treatment arms: US-guided TAP block (US-arm) or laparoscopic-guided TAP block (LAP-arm). Primary outcome was PACU pain scores. Secondary outcomes included PACU opioid consumption, block completion time and block accuracy.RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled in each arm. In the LAP-arm, 59% of blocks were in the transversus abdominis plane compared to 74% of TAP blocks in the US-arm (p=0.18). Blocks were completed faster in the LAP-arm (2.1±1.9vs. 7.9±3.4min, p<0.001). The average highest PACU pain score was 3.4±3.1 for the LAP-arm and 4.3±3.8 for the US-arm (p=0.37). Overall PACU pain scores and opioid consumption were similar between the groups (1.2±1.3vs. 1.6±1.6, p=0.24; 2.2±5.8vs. 0.9±1.4MME, p=0.26).CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic TAP blocks have equivalent efficacy in post-operative pain scores, narcotic use, and tissue plane accuracy as compared to US-guided TAP blocks. They are also completed faster and may result in less operating room and general anesthetic time for the pediatric patient.

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021.02.025

    View details for PubMedID 33771368

  • Does shock index, pediatric age-adjusted predict mortality by trauma center type? The journal of trauma and acute care surgery Austin, J. R., Ye, C., Lee, M. O., Chao, S. D. 2021; 91 (4): 649-654


    Pediatric trauma patients are treated at adult trauma centers (ATCs), mixed pediatric and ATCs (MTC), or pediatric trauma centers (PTCs). Shock index, pediatric age-adjusted (SIPA) can prospectively identify severely injured children. This study characterized the differences in mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS) among pediatric trauma patients with elevated SIPA (eSIPA) at different trauma centers types.Pediatric patients (1-14 years) were queried from the 2013 to 2016 National Trauma Data Bank. Patients with eSIPA were included for analysis. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included rates of splenectomy, computed tomography chest scans, laparotomy, and hospital LOS. Unadjusted frequencies and multivariable regression analyses were performed. An alpha level of 0.01 was used to determine significance.Out of 189,003 pediatric trauma patients, 15,832 were included for analysis. After controlling for age, race, sex, payment method, Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Scale score, hospital teaching status, and number of hospital beds, there was no significant difference in mortality among eSIPA patients at ATCs (odds ratio [OR], 0.753; p = 0.078) and MTCs (OR, 1.051; p = 0.776) when compared with PTCs. This remained true even among the most severely injured eSIPA patients (Injury Severity Score > 25). Splenectomy rates were higher at ATCs (OR, 3.234; p = 0.005), as were computed tomography chest scan rates (ATC OR, 4.423; p < 0.001; MTC OR, 6.070; p < 0.001) than at PTCs. There was a trend toward higher splenectomy rates at MTCs (OR, 2.910; p = 0.030) compared with PTCs, but this did not reach statistical significance. Laparotomy rates and hospital LOS were not significantly different.Among eSIPA pediatric trauma patients, there was no difference in mortality between trauma center types. However, other secondary findings indicate that specialty care at PTCs may help optimize the care of pediatric trauma patients.Retrospective cohort study, level IV.

    View details for DOI 10.1097/TA.0000000000003197

    View details for PubMedID 34559163