Penetrating abdominal injuries are potentially life threatening due to the associated hemorrhagic shock and visceral injury. Through and through penetrating injury with polytrauma is rarely encountered. We report a case presenting with in situ projecting heavy metallic rod in a through and through penetrating abdominal injury along with foreign body in a road traffic accident. Anaesthetic management was difficult due to inability to position in supine, rapidly progressing hemorrhagic shock and hypoxia due hemopneumothorax. Two operating tables were used with adequate intervening space to accommodate the posteriorly projecting metallic rod during intubation in supine position. Intensive monitoring and resuscitation resulted in uneventful successful outcome.
Background:One of the challenges of anaesthesia for shoulder arthroscopic procedures is the need for controlled hypotension to lessen intra-articular haemorrhage and thereby provide adequate visualisation to the surgeon. Achievement of optimal conditions necessitates several interventions and manipulations by the anaesthesiologist and the surgeon, most of which directly or indirectly involve maintaining intra-operative blood pressure (BP) control.Aim:This study aimed to compare the efficacy and convenience of target controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol and inhalational agent sevoflurane in patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopic surgery after preliminary inter-scalene blockade.Methods:Of thirty four patients studied, seventeen received TCI propofol (target plasma concentration of 3 μg/ml) and an equal number, sevoflurane (1.2-1.5 Minimum Alveolar Concentration). N2O was used in both groups. Systolic, diastolic, mean blood pressures and heart rate were recorded regularly throughout the procedure. All interventions to control BP by the anaesthesiologist and pump manipulation requested by the surgeon were recorded. The volume of saline irrigant used and the haemoglobin (Hb) content of the return fluid were measured.Results:TCI propofol could achieve lower systolic, mean BP levels and the number of interventions required was also lower as compared to the sevoflurane group. The number of patients with measurable Hb was lower in the TCI propofol group and this translated into better visualisation of the joint space. A higher volume of saline irrigant was required in the sevoflurane group. No immediate peri-operative anaesthetic complications were noted in either category.Conclusion:TCI propofol appears to be superior to and more convenient than sevoflurane anaesthesia in inter-scalene blocked patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy.
Background:The sparing of ulnar nerve often leads to the failure of the upper limb blockade. It has been claimed that local anesthetic injection at the site of stimulator evoked finger flexion response is associated with highest success rate of a successful block. The lower trunk stimulation of plexus should yield similar results as this trunk contributes significantly for median and ulnar nerves of hand and forearm.Materials and Methods:The patients with intact anatomical upper limb structures underwent (a) combined ultrasound (USG) assisted nerve stimulator evoked motor response evaluation or in (b) open brachial plexus trunk stimulation evaluations. The individual patient's lower trunk stimulation motor responses were documented.Results:When combined the results of both USG and open plexus groups, wrist flexion was seen in 52%, finger flexion in 61% and forearm pronation or twitches of anterior compartment in 48% of total subjects studied. These responses were noted either separately or in combinations.Conclusion:We conclude other than finger flexion, the wrist flexion the forearm twitches, pronation and wrist adduction may be used for lower trunk blockade and thus for higher accuracy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.