Quality of clinical trials has improved steadily over last two decades, but certain areas in trial methodology still require special attention like in sample size calculation. The sample size is one of the basic steps in planning any clinical trial and any negligence in its calculation may lead to rejection of true findings and false results may get approval. Although statisticians play a major role in sample size estimation basic knowledge regarding sample size calculation is very sparse among most of the anesthesiologists related to research including under trainee doctors. In this review, we will discuss how important sample size calculation is for research studies and the effects of underestimation or overestimation of sample size on project's results. We have highlighted the basic concepts regarding various parameters needed to calculate the sample size along with examples.

Background and Aims:Regional anesthesia is a recommended technique for upper and lower limb surgeries with better postoperative profile. In this, randomized, double-blind study, we evaluated the effectiveness of the addition of dexmedetomidine to varying concentration of levobupivacaine for supra clavicular brachial plexus block.Material and Methods:After obtaining ethical Committee approval, a double-blind, randomized prospective clinical study was conducted on 90 American Society of Anesthesiologist Grade I and II patients in the age group of 18-55 years, divided randomly into two groups: Group A received 40 ml of solution containing 30 ml 0.5% levobupivacaine and 10 ml 1% lignocaine and group B received 40 ml of solution containing 30 ml 0.25% levobupivacaine and 10 ml 1% lignocaine with dexmedetomidine 1 microg/kg for supraclavicular brachial plexus block. Besides effectiveness, other parameters observed were: duration of sensory blockade; onset and duration of motor blockade; duration of postoperative analgesia; and patient satisfaction score.Results:Onset of sensory and motor blockade was 7.6 ± 1.006 min and 8.3 ± 0.877 min in group A, while it was 6.96 ± 1.077 min an 7.6 ± 1.1 min in group B, respectively. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Duration of sensory block was 8.5 ± 0.77 h in group A and 8.5 ± 0.98 in group B (P > 0.05). Duration of motor block was 8.45 ± 0.75 h in group A and 5.6 ± 0.98 in group B (P < 0.05). Duration of analgesia was 8.5 ± 0.77 h in group A and 9.2 ± 1.05 in group B (P < 0.05).Conclusion:Addition of 1 microg/kg dexmedetomidine to 0.25% levobupivacaine for supraclaviclar plexus block shortens sensory, motor block onset time and motor block durations, extends sensory block, and analgesia durations. Reduction in total levobupivacaine dose also increases the safety margin of the block.

Dental fear and anxiety is a common problem in pediatric patients. There is considerable variation in techniques used to manage them. Various sedation techniques using many different anesthetic agents have gained considerable popularity over the past few years. Children are not little adults; they differ physically, psychologically, and emotionally. The purpose of this review is to survey recent trends and concerning issues in the rapidly changing field of pediatric sedation. We will study the topic from the perspective of an anesthesiologist. It will also provide information to practitioners on the practice of conscious sedation in dentistry and will also outline the route of administration, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of various drugs used.

No abstract

No abstract

Clinical Trials Registry-India (http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/login.php), trial registration number 2013/09/003968.

Background and Aim:Recent studies have advised narcotic less anaestheic techniques for breast cancer surgeries due to altered immune system by use of opioids. So we planned this study to compare the efficacy of dexmedtomidine with fentanyl in breast cancer surgery in terms of haemodynamic stability, anaesthetic sparing effects, recovery profile and postoperative analgesia.Material and Methods:In this randomized prospective controlled trial, a total of 60 female patients were randomly assigned into two groups. Patients in group F (n = 30) received a loading dose of fentanyl 2 μg/kg with maintenance dose of 0.5 μg/kg/h and in group D (n = 30) received dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg as loading dose with maintenance dose of 0.25 μg/kg/h till the end of surgery. Hemodynamic parameters, desflurane requirement, recovery profile and postoperative analgesia were monitored and compared in both the groups.Results:Mean HR was less in group D compared to group F intraoperatively, before and after extubation with a significant p value. The mean MAP was also lower in group D compared to group F at all the time points. MAC requirements were found lower in group D compared to group F with a significant P < 0.001. Cognitive recovery in the form of time to respond to verbal commands, time to extubation, time to orientation was early in dexmedetomidine group.Conclusion:Dexmedtomidine can be used as suitable alternative to fentanyl in breast cancer surgeries due to better hemodynamic stability, anaesthetic sparing effects and better recovery profile.

Intranasal dexmedetomidine is a better anxiolytic and sedative as compared to clonidine. Postoperative analgesic requirement was also significantly decreased after intranasal dexmedetomidine. Thus, it can be preferred as compared to clonidine for premedication in pediatric surgical patients.