Post-double lung transplant, emergent cervical spine surgery, and COVID pandemic: A triple threat to perioperative management
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dear Editor, Recipients of double lung transplants (DLT) have multiple anesthetic considerations for future surgeries. These include, altered physiology (impaired cough and disrupted lymphatics), cor pulmonale, need for aseptic techniques, and multisystem dysfunction due to immunosuppressants.[1] An emergent cervical spine surgery in these patients potentiates further risks due to innate complexities related to positioning, unstable spine, bleeding, and extubation. We present a case of a middle-aged patient who underwent an emergent cervical spine surgery after a recent DLT. To make this more complicated, this case took place during the COVID-19 pandemic further multiplying these risks. A 56-year-old man was admitted for redo cervical spine decompression and fusion (C1-T2) due to progressively worsening cervical myelopathy. His past medical history included scleroderma, chronic kidney disease, thyroid goiter, and chronic pain. His scleroderma caused severely restrictive interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension leading to DLT. A major challenge during this case was induction and intubation. Previous cervical spine fusion limited neck extension, while scleroderma increased aspiration risk. Gentle bronchoscopy while under deep anesthesia was the method of choice to avoid stimulation, to avoid exacerbation of pulmonary hypertension. This was made more difficult by tracheal deviation cause by his large goiter. We were further burdened by COVID-19 precautions. Double gloves made manipulation difficult, while face shields produced glare and obscured views of the screen. A second major challenge was preparing for any disruption in hemodynamic status and blood loss. His history of pulmonary hypertension made this a priority. Extensive bone manipulation often leads to severe bleeding, especially in redo spinal surgeries with hardware. Point-of-care tests, and diligent monitoring assessed need for transfusion to maintain spinal perfusion. In contrast, adequate depth using a total intravenous anesthetic was necessary to avoid sympathetic stimulation. This was vital as neuromonitoring prevented the use of volatile anesthetics and muscle relaxation. We thought this case was important to highlight, as there is a paucity of such cases in the literature. We conducted a literature search to identify case reports of lung transplant recipients undergoing spinal surgery and found only three articles of high relevance [Table 1].[234] This article outlines the risks of patients such as ours, and we hope that further documenting our care can lead to a better understanding of such challenges.Table 1: Summary of literature searchDeclaration of patient consent The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».