No abstract

Objective:The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of midazolam-ondansetron combination in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after middle ear surgery and its comparison with using midazolam or ondansetron alone.Methods:One hundred and forty patients were enrolled in four groups to receive midazolam 0.75 mg/kg in group M, ondansetron 4 mg in group O, midazolam 0.75 mg/kg and ondansetron 4 mg in group MO, and saline 0.90% in group S intravenously just before anesthesia. Assessment of nausea, vomiting, rescue antiemetic, and side effects of study drugs such as headache and dizziness was carried out postoperatively for 24 h.Findings:The incidence of PONV was significantly smaller in group MO than group M and group O, while there was no significant difference between group M and group O during the first 24 h postoperatively. Requirement to the additional antiemetic was significantly more in group S (71.4%) compared to other groups, while in group MO (11.4%) was lower than group M (31.4%) and group O (34.3%).Conclusion:Our study showed that prophylactic administration of midazolam 0.75 mg/kg combined with ondansetron 4 mg was more effective than using midazolam or ondansetron alone in prevention of PONV after middle ear surgery.

Background:Preoperative assessment of anatomical landmarks andclinical factors help detect potentially difficult laryngoscopies. The aim of the present study was to compare the ability to predict difficult visualization of the larynx from thefollowing preoperative airway predictive indices, in isolation and combination: Neck circumference to thyromental distance (NC/TMD), neck circumference (NC), modified Mallampatitest (MMT), the ratio of height to thyromental distance (RHTMD), and the upper-lip-bite test (ULBT).Materials and Methods:We collected data on657 consecutive patients scheduled for elective caesarean delivery under general anesthesia requiring endotracheal intubation and then evaluated all five factors before caesarean. An experienced anesthesiologist, not informed of the recorded preoperative airway evaluation, performed the laryngoscopy and grading (as per Cormack and Lehane's classification). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for each airway predictor in isolation and in combination were determined.Results:Difficult laryngoscopy (Grade 3 or 4) occurred in 53 (8.06%) patients. There were significant differences in thyromental distance (TMD), RHTMD, NC, and NC/TMD between difficult visualization of larynx and easy visualization of larynx patients (P < 0.05). The main end-point area under curve (AUC) of the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) was lower for MMT (AUC = 0.497; 95% Confidence Interval = CI,0.045-0.536) and ULBT (AUC = 0.500, 95% CI, 0.461-0.539) compared to RHTMD, NC, TMD, and NC/TMD score ([AUC = 0.627, 95% CI, 0.589-0.664], [AUC = 0.691; 95% CI, 0.654-0.726], [AUC = 0.606; 95% CI, 0.567-0.643], [AUC = 0.689;95% CI, 0.625-0.724], respectively), and the differences of six ROC curves were statistically significant (P < 0.05).Conclusion:The NC/TM Discomparable with NC, RHTMD, and ULBT for the prediction of difficult laryngoscopy in caes are an delivery.

No abstract