Background:Analgesia and sedation are usually required for the comfort of the patient and surgeon during tympanoplasty surgery done under local anesthesia. In this study, satisfaction scores and effectiveness of sedation and analgesia with dexmedetomidine were compared with a combination of midazolam-fentanyl.Materials and Methods:Ninety patients undergoing tympanoplasty under local anesthesia randomly received either IV dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg-1 over 10 min followed by 0.2 μg kg-1h-1 infusion (Group D) or IV midazolam 0.06 mg kg-1 plus IV fentanyl 1 μg kg-1 over 10 min (Group MF) followed by normal saline infusion at 0.2 ml kg-1h-1. Sedation was titrated to Ramsay sedation score (RSS) of three. Vital parameters, rescue analgesics (fentanyl 1 μg kg-1) and sedatives (midazolam 0.01 mg kg-1), patient and surgeon satisfaction scores were recorded.Results:Patient and surgeon satisfaction score was better in Group D than Group MF (median interquartile range (IQR) 9 (8-10) vs. 8 (6.5-9.5) and 9 (8.5-9.5) vs. 8 (6.75-9.25), P = 0.0001 for both). Intraoperative heart rate and mean arterial pressure in Group D were lower than the baseline values and the corresponding values in Group MF (P < 0.05). Percentage of patients requiring rescue fentanyl was higher in Group MF than Group D (40% vs. 11.1%, P = 0.01). One patient in Group D while four in Group MF (8.8%) required rescue sedation with midazolam (P > 0.17). Seven patients in Group D had dry mouth vs. none in Group MF (P = 0.006). One patient in Group D had bradycardia with hypotension which was effectively treated.Conclusion:Dexmedetomidine is comparable to midazolam-fentanyl for sedation and analgesia in tympanoplasty with better surgeon and patient satisfaction. Hemodynamics need to be closely monitored.

An increasing number of patients with a prior history of stroke present for various types of surgeries. They have varying degree of neurological disability and associated co-morbidities, which pose challenges for their perioperative management. There is paucity in literature about their management guidelines for noncardiac, noncarotid surgeries. The available literature suggests higher risk of perioperative stroke, postoperative neurological deficits, and other morbidities. Measures to reduce perioperative risks are discussed in this review. Prior optimization by improving modifiable risk factors, choosing appropriate timing of elective surgery, and careful titration of anesthesia and close monitoring are needed.

No abstract

of neurosurgical outcome, intubation for > 24 hours for head trauma or death. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios were calculated.Results: Twenty-eight out of 50 patients had CHIDA score > 0 while 25 patients scored > 2. Of these, six patients (12%) experienced the primary outcome including one death. Using a cutoff of score > 0 to admit to ICU had a sensitivity of 100% and a negative predictive value of 100%. Using a cutoff of score > 2 had a sensitivity of 83.33% and a negative predictive value of 96%. Using these cutoffs, ICU admission would have been avoided in 44 and 50% patients, respectively.Conclusion: CHIDA score seems to be a useful tool but needs to be validated in developing countries in more patients.

Fluid management in neurosurgical paediatric patients can be a real challenge due to their different pathophysiology, sensitivity to fluid loss, inability to accurately judge the degree of abnormality and adequacy of replacement in face of limited monitoring. For infants and children undergoing neurosurgical procedures, isotonic fluids should be used for maintenance and replacement to avoid increase in intracranial pressure and maintain cerebral perfusion. Routine use of added dextrose is not needed, but blood glucose monitoring should be done in high risk population. Preoperative deficits and intraoperative blood loss should be closely monitored and treated. Hyponataemia and other electrolyte derangements are common and should be monitored.