Neck pain occurring during PELD is associated with a highly increased cervical EP generated by continuous infusion.

BackgroundOpioid induced hyperalgesia (OIH) is related with high opioid dosage, a long duration of opioid administration, and abrupt discontinuation of infused opioids in anesthetic settings. Ketamine is known to attenuate OIH efficiently, but methods of administration and methods to quantify and assess a decrease in OIH vary. We demonstrated the existence of remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia and investigated the ability of ketamine to attenuate OIH.MethodsSeventy-five patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery under remifentanil-based anesthesia were assigned to one of the following groups: (1) group RL (remifentanil 0.05 µg/kg/min), (2) group RH (remifentanil 0.3 µg/kg/min), or (3) group KRH (remifentanil 0.3 µg/kg/min + ketamine 0.5 mg/kg bolus with 5 µg/kg/min infusion intraoperatively). Desflurane was administered for maintenance of anesthesia to target bispectral index scores (40-60) and hemodynamic parameters (heart rate and blood pressure < ± 20% of baseline values). All parameters related to OIH and its attenuation induced by ketamine were investigated.ResultsThere was no significant difference among the three groups related to demographic and anesthetic parameters except the end-tidal concentration of desflurane. Additional analgesic consumption, numerical rating scale scores at 6 and 24 h, and cumulative fentanyl dose were significantly higher in group RH than in the other two groups. The value difference of the Touch-Test sensory evaluation was significantly higher negative in group RH than in the other two groups.ConclusionsRemifentanil-induced hyperalgesia is significantly attenuated by intraoperative bolus and infusion of ketamine. Ketamine also decreased tactile sensitization, as measured by Touch-Test sensory evaluation.

Foraminal or extraforaminal Far Lateral Disc Herniations (FLDH) extending into or beyond the foraminal zone have been recognized as between 7-12% of all lumbosacral disc herniations. Conventional posterior laminectomy may not provide good access to a herniation that lies far lateral to the lateral margin of the pedicle. Use of the endoscopic technique through a percutaneous approach to treat such FLDH patients can decrease the surgical morbidity while achieving better outcomes. We made an effort to utilize the advantages of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and to determine the appropriate approach for FLDH at the level between the 5th Lumbar and first Sacral vertebrae(L5-S1). The authors present a case of an endoscopically resected lumbar extruded disc of the left extraforaminal zone with superior foraminal migration at the level of L5-S1, which had led to foot drop, while placing the endoscope in the anterior epidural space without facetectomy.

BackgroundDexmedetomidine as a sole agent showed limited use for painful procedures due to its insufficient sedative/analgesic effect, pronounced hemodynamic instability and prolonged recovery. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine-ketamine (DK) versus dexmedetomidine-midazolam-fentanyl (DMF) combination on the quality of sedation/analgesia and recovery profiles for monitored anesthesia care (MAC).MethodsFifty six patients undergoing chemoport insertion were randomly assigned to group DK or DMF. All patients received 1 μg.kg−1 dexmedetomidine over 10 min followed by 0.2–1.0 μg.kg−1h−1 in order to maintain 3 or 4 of modified Observer's Assessment of Analgesia and Sedation score checked every 3 min. At the start of dexmedetomidine infusion, patients in group DK or DMF received 0.5 mg.kg−1 ketamine or 0.05 mg.kg−1 midazolam + 0.5 μg.kg−1 fentanyl intravenously, respectively. When required, rescue sedatives (0.5 mg.kg-1 of ketamine or 0.05 mg.kg-1 of midazolam) and analgesics (0.5 mg.kg-1 of ketamine or 0.5 μg.kg-1 of fentanyl) were given to the patients in DK or DMF group, respectively. The primary outcome of this study was the recovery parameters (time to spontaneous eye opening and the length of the recovery room stay). The secondary outcomes were parameters indicating quality of sedation/analgesia, cardiorespiratory variables, and satisfaction scores.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the onset time, time to spontaneous eye opening, recovery room stay, the incidences of inadequate analgesia, hypotension and bradycardia between the two groups. Despite lower infusion rate of dexmedetomidine, more patients in the DMF group had bispectral index (BIS) < 60 than in the DK group and vice versa for need of rescue sedatives. The satisfaction scores of patients, surgeon, and anesthesiologist in the DMF group were significantly better than the DK group.ConclusionsThe DK and DMF groups showed comparable recovery time, onset time, cardiorespiratory variables, and analgesia. However, the DMF group showed a better sedation quality and satisfaction scores despite the lower infusion rate of dexmedetomidine, and a higher incidence of BIS < 60 than the DK group.Trial registrationClinical Trial Registry of Korea KCT0000951, registered 12/12/2013

BackgroundPulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is a treatment modality that alleviates radicular pain by intermittently applying high-frequency currents adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion. There has been no comparative study on analgesic effect according to the position of the needle tip in PRF treatment. The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes of PRF according to the needle tip position.MethodsPatients were classified into 2 groups (group IP [group inside of pedicle] and group OP [group outside of pedicle]) based on needle tip position in the anteroposterior view of fluoroscopy. In the anteroposterior view, the needle tip was advanced medially further than the lateral aspect of the corresponding pedicle in group IP; however, in group OP, the needle tip was not advanced. The treatment outcomes and pain scores were evaluated at 4, 8, and 12 weeks after applying PRF.ResultsAt 4, 8, and 12 weeks, there were no significant differences between the successful response rate and numerical rating scale score ratio.ConclusionsThe analgesic efficacy of PRF treatment did not differ with the needle tip position.