BackgroundFiberoptic nasotracheal intubation (FNI) is performed if it is difficult to open the mouth or if intubation using laryngoscope is expected to be difficult. However, training is necessary because intubation performed by inexperienced operators leads to complications.MethodsEvery resident performed intubation in 40 patients. Success of FNI was evaluated as the time of FNI. First intubation time was restricted to 2 min 30 s. If the second attempt was unsuccessful, it was considered a failed case, and a specialist performed nasotracheal intubation. If the general method of intubation was expected to be difficult, awake intubation was performed. The degree of nasal bleeding during intubation was also evaluated.ResultsThe mean age of the operators (11 men, 7 women) was 27.8 years. FNI was performed in a total of 716 patients. The success rate was 88.3% for the first attempt and 94.6% for the second attempt. The failure rate of intubation in anesthetized patients was 4.9%, and 13.6% in awake patients. When intubation was performed in anesthetized patients, the failure rate from the first to fifth trial was 9.6%, which decreased to 0.7% when the number of trials increased to > 30 times. In terms of awake intubation, there was no failed attempt when the resident had performed the FNI > 30 times. The number of FNIs performed and nasal bleeding were important factors influencing the failure rate.ConclusionThe success rate of FNI increased as the number of FNI performed by residents increased despite the nasal bleeding.
BackgroundThe number of patients with Alzheimer's disease is growing worldwide, and the proportion of patients requiring dental treatment under general anesthesia increases with increasing severity of the disease. However, outpatient anesthesia management for these patients involves great risks, as most patients with Alzheimer's disease are old and may show reduced cardiopulmonary functions and have cognitive disorders.MethodsThis study retrospectively investigated 43 patients with Alzheimer's disease who received outpatient anesthesia for dental treatment between 2012–2017. Pre-anesthesia patient evaluation, dental treatment details, anesthetics dose, blood pressure, duration and procedure of anesthesia, and post-recovery management were analyzed and compared between patients who underwent general anesthesia or intravenous sedation.ResultsMean age of patients was about 70 years; mean duration of Alzheimer's disease since diagnosis was 6.3 years. Severity was assessed using the global deterioration scale; 62.8% of patients were in level ≥ 6. Mean duration of anesthesia was 178 minutes for general anesthesia and 85 minutes for intravenous sedation. Mean recovery time was 65 minutes. Eleven patients underwent intravenous sedation using propofol, and 22/32 cases involved total intravenous anesthesia using propofol and remifentanil. Anesthesia was maintained with desflurane for other patients. While maintaining anesthesia, inotropic and atropine were used for eight and four patients, respectively. No patient developed postoperative delirium. All patients were discharged without complications.ConclusionWith appropriate anesthetic management, outpatient anesthesia was successfully performed without complications for dental treatment for patients with severe Alzheimer's disease.
BackgroundWhen performing dental treatment under general anesthesia in adult patients who have difficulty cooperating due to intellectual disabilities, anesthesia induction may be difficult as well. In particular, patients who refuse to come into the dental office or sit in the dental chair may have to be forced to do so. However, for adult patients with a large physique, physical restraint may be difficult, while oral sedatives as premedication may be helpful. Here, a retrospective analysis was performed to investigate the effect of oral sedatives.MethodsA hospital-based medical information database was searched for patients who were prescribed oral midazolam or triazolam between January 2009 and December 2017. Pre-anesthesia evaluation, anesthesia, and anesthesia recovery records of all patients were analyzed, and information on disability type, reason for prescribing oral sedatives, prescribed medication and dose, cooperation level during anesthesia induction, anesthesia duration, length of recovery room stay, and complications was retrieved.ResultsA total of 97 patients were identified, of whom 50 and 47 received midazolam and triazolam, respectively. The major types of disability were intellectual disabilities, autism, Down syndrome, blindness, cerebral palsy, and epilepsy. Analyses of changes in cooperation levels after drug administration showed that anesthesia induction without physical restraint was possible in 56.0% of patients in the midazolam group and in 46.8% of patients in the triazolam group (P = 0.312).ConclusionsWith administration of oral midazolam or triazolam, general anesthesia induction without any physical restraint was possible in approximately 50% of patients, with no difference between the drugs.
Background Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) frequently occurs following bimaxillary orthognathic surgeries. Compared to opioids, Nefopam is associated with lower incidences of PONV, and does not induce gastrointestinal tract injury, coagulopathy, nephrotoxicity, or fracture healing dysfunction, which are common side effects of Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. We compared nefopam- and fentanyl-induced incidence of PONV in patients with access to patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) following bimaxillary orthognathic surgeries. Methods Patients undergoing bimaxillary orthognathic surgeries were randomly divided into nefopam and fentanyl groups. Nefopam 120 mg or fentanyl 700 µg was mixed with normal saline to a final volume of 120 mL. Patients were given access to nefopam or fentanyl via PCA. Postoperative pain intensity and PONV were measured at 30 minutes and 1 hour after surgery in the recovery room and at 8, 24, 48, and 72 hours after surgery in the ward. The frequency of bolus delivery was compared at each time point. Results Eighty-nine patients were enrolled in this study, with 48 in the nefopam (N) group and 41 in the fentanyl (F) group. PONV occurred in 13 patients (27.7%) in the N group and 7 patients (17.1%) in the F group at 8 hours post-surgery (P = 0.568), and there were no significant differences between the two groups at any of the time points. VAS scores were 4.4 ± 2.0 and 3.7 ± 1.9 in the N and F groups, respectively, at 8 hours after surgery (P = 0.122), and cumulative bolus delivery was 10.7 ± 13.7 and 8.6 ± 8.5, respectively (P = 0.408). There were no significant differences in pain or bolus delivery at any of the remaining time points. Conclusion Patients who underwent bimaxillary orthognathic surgery and were given nefopam via PCA did not experience a lower rate of PONV compared to those that received fentanyl via PCA. Furthermore, nefopam and fentanyl did not provide significantly different postoperative pain control.
Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) is used to identify areas of upper airway obstruction, which occurs when patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) snore. DISE enables effective diagnosis and appropriate treatment of the obstruction site. Among surgical treatment methods for OSA, maxillomandibular advancement surgery (MMA) is performed to move a jaw forward; the surgery has a high success rate for OSA treatment. In DISE, anesthetics such as propofol and midazolam must be administered to induce snoring while the patient is deeply sedated for an accurate diagnosis to be made. When inducing deep sedation in a patient with OSA, airway obstruction may increase, causing oxygen saturation to drop; airway interventions are necessary in such cases. Effective DISE and MMA surgery can be performed by administering propofol through target-controlled infusion while monitoring the bispectral index (BIS).
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.