Intradermal tramadol 5% can provide a local anaesthesia similar to the prilocaine but the incidence of local adverse effects is higher.

A double-blind, randomized study was designed to determine the efficacy of dexamethasone in decreasing periorbital edema and ecchymosis after rhinoplasty. Sixty rhinoplasty patients undergoing hump resection and lateral osteotomy were included in the study and were divided into 6 groups: group 1 (n = 10), single dose of 8 mg intravenous (IV) dexamethasone 1 hour before the operation; group 2 (n = 10), single dose of 8 mg IV dexamethasone at the beginning of the operation; group 3 (n = 10), 3 doses of 8 mg IV dexamethasone 1 hour before the operation, and 24 and 48 hours after the operation; group 4 (n = 10), 3 doses of 8 mg IV dexamethasone at the beginning of the operation, and 24 and 48 hour after the operation; group 5 (n = 10), 3 doses of 8 mg IV dexamethasone immediately after the operation, and 24 and 48 hours after the operation; group 6 (n = 10), control, no dexamethasone administration before or after the operation. Intraoperative blood loss was recorded for each patient. Patients were evaluated at 24 hours and days 2, 5, 7, and 10. For the postoperative evaluation of periorbital ecchymosis and edema, a scale of 0 to 4 points was used. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of bleeding (P > 0.05). In the groups using steroid before osteotomy, edema and ecchymosis were significantly lower during the first 2 days compared with the control group (P < 0.05). No significant difference was seen between groups 1 and 2. When patients were evaluated on day 5, edema and ecchymosis were significantly lower in groups 3 and 4 (P < 0.05) compared with other groups, but there was no difference between them. Group 5 had a significantly higher level of edema and ecchymosis compared with groups 1 through 4 at 24 hours and at days 2, 5, and 7 (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between groups on day 10. In conclusion, if the first dose is given before osteotomy, triple-dose steroid application is the best bet for decreasing postoperative edema and ecchymosis. None of the patients had any complications related to the use of dexamethasone.

General and regional anesthesia (spinal and epidural) can be performed successfully for lumbar disc surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the superiority of general anesthesia or epidural anesthesia techniques in lumbar laminectomy and discectomy. Sixty patients undergoing lumbar partial hemilaminectomy and discectomy were randomly divided into two groups receiving standardized general anesthesia (GA) or epidural anesthesia (EA). Demographically, both groups were similar. Surgical onset time (36.72 +/- 5.47 vs. 25.40 +/- 7.83 minutes) was longer in the EA group, but total anesthesia time (154.32 +/- 35.73 vs. 162.40 +/- 26.79 minutes) did not differ between the two groups. Surgical time (118.80 +/- 35.42 vs. 139.60 +/- 26.80 minutes) was longer in the GA group. The heart rate and mean arterial pressure values of the EA group measured 15, 20, and 25 minutes after local anesthetic administration to the epidural catheter were found to be lower than in the GA group measured after induction of general anesthesia. The frequency of bradycardia (EA vs. GA, 3 vs. 2), tachycardia (3 vs. 7), and hypotension (6 vs. 4) during anesthesia did not differ between the groups, but the occurrence of hypertension (1 vs. 7) was higher in the GA group. Blood loss was less in the EA group than in the GA group (180.40 +/- 70.38 vs. 288.60 +/- 112.51 mL). Postanesthesia care unit (PACU) heart rate and mean arterial pressure were higher in the GA group. Peak pain scores in PACU and postoperative 24 hours were higher in the GA group when compared with the EA group. Nausea was more common in the GA group both in PACU and 24 hours after surgery. There was no difference between the hospitalization duration of the groups. In conclusion, this study suggests that EA is an important alternative to GA during lumbar disc surgery.

Recently, it has been shown that tramadol was an effective local anesthetic in minor surgery. In this study, its efficacy for relieving postoperative pain was evaluated. Forty patients undergoing minor surgery (lipoma excision and scar revision) under local anesthesia were included. The patients were randomly allocated into two groups: In group T (n = 20), 2 mg/kg tramadol, and in group L (n = 20), 1 mg/kg lidocaine were given subcutaneously. In both groups, the injection volume was 5 mL containing 1/200,000 adrenalin. The degree of the erythema, burning sensation, and pain at the injection site were recorded. Incision response, which is a degree of the pain sensation during incision, was recorded and graded with the visual analog scale (VAS) 0-10. After incision, VAS values were recorded at 15-min intervals. When the VAS score of the pain during surgery exceeded 4, an additional 0.5 mg/kg of the study drug was injected and this dosage was added to the total amount. Patients were discharged on the same day. Subjects with VAS > or =4 were advised to take paracetamol as needed. No side effects were recorded in either group except for 1 patient complaining of nausea in group T at the 30th min of operation. After 24 h, patients were called and the time of first analgesic use and total analgesic dose taken during the postoperative period were recorded. During the 24 postoperative hours, 18 of 20 (90%) subjects did not need any type of analgesia in group T, whereas this number was 10 (50%) in group L (P < 0.05). The time span before taking first analgesic medication was longer (4.9 +/- 0.3 h) in group T than that of group L (4.4 +/- 0.7 h) (P < 0.05). We propose that tramadol can be used as an alternative drug to lidocaine for minor surgeries because of its ability to decrease the demand for postoperative analgesia.

No abstract