No abstract

Intraoperative anaphylactic shock is an unusual complication. Different causes can be involved. Surgery of hydatid cyst is rarely responsible. About a case report of anaphylactic shock due to hydatid cyst surgery, the authors discuss the mechanisms, principles of treatment, and prevention measures of this complication.

No abstract

IntroductionLocoregional anesthesia techniques are increasingly used for cataract surgery. From these techniques, peribulbar anesthesia has been very successful over the retrobulbar anesthesia seen its effectiveness and safety. However, peribulbar anesthesia is not without risk.Case presentationA 70-year-old African man was scheduled for cataract surgery and lens implant for his right eye. His medical history included hypertension, diabetes mellitus and gall bladder surgery. There were no personal or family antecedents of allergy, epilepsy or taking food or toxic drug. No abnormalities were detected in his preoperative evaluation. In the operating room, standard monitoring was installed and a peripheral venous catheter 18g was inserted. Peribulbar anesthesia was realized with two injections in primary gaze position. The anesthetic mixture contained lidocaine 2% and bupivacaine 0.5%. The needle used was 25GA, 19mm, ¾ inch. The first injection was performed in his lower temporal peribulbar space with 5mL of mixture; the second injection was performed with 3mL of mixture in his upper nasal peribulbar space. These injections were performed after a negative aspiration test and followed by manual compression of his globe for 5 minutes. Five minutes after peribulbar anesthesia, his blood pressure increased to 209/115mmHg requiring three bolus of nicardipine (3.0mg) to reduce his blood pressure to 134/56mmHg. One minute after, he had generalized tonic–clonic seizures. Tracheal intubation was performed. His capillary blood glucose was 170mg/dL, axillary temperature was 36.5°C, and his serum electrolytes were normal. He recovered spontaneous ventilation 1.5 hours later. A neurological examination noted no deficit. Extubation was performed 15 minutes later without incident. A brain computed tomography and electroencephalogram were unremarkable. He was discharged on the second day and operated on 1 month later under general anesthesia.ConclusionsVarious serious complications can occur during locoregional anesthesia techniques in ophthalmic surgery. The mastering and perfecting of these techniques by practitioners and compliance with safety standards in anesthesia are the only way to guarantee the prevention of such complications.

Purpose This study was designed to compare videolaryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy with respect to ease of intubation when inserting a double lumen tube (DLT). Methods In this prospective randomized study 68 patients American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II were included. Patients with criteria indicating possible difficult intubation were excluded. The patients were randomized into two groups, depending on the tool used to facilitate intubation: videolaryngoscope (VL group) or direct laryngoscopy (DL group). The time required for intubation was the primary endpoint. Cormack and Lehane glottic visualization (CL) scores, the need for external laryngeal maneuvers and the number of attempts were measured. Results Glottic visualization was better in the VL group than in the DL group. The CL scores were I, II and III in 24, eight and two patients, respectively, in the VL group compared with 13, 11 and eight in the DL group (P = 0.025). Patients in the VL group required fewer attempts than the DL group (P = 0.019). Intubation time was 39.9 ± 4.4 sec in the VL group and 47.9 ± 5.4 sec in the DL group (P \ 0.001). No intubation failure was noted in group VL compared with two in the DL group (not significant). Conclusion The use of a videolaryngoscope reduces the time required for intubation with a DLT compared with the direct laryngoscopy in elective thoracic surgery.