By correcting relative dehydration and preventing the pooling of blood, CI decreased less than 20% during pneumoperitoneum as compared with the baseline awake level. The head-up positioning accounts for many of the adverse effects in hemodynamics during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

More prolonged gynecological laparoscopic operations are being performed in recent years, and a steeper head-down position is required. The early reports of hemodynamic changes during gynecologic laparoscopy are conflicting, and the effects of anesthesia, head-down tilt and pneumoperitoneum have not been clearly separated. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring was carried out in 20 female ASA Class I-II patients who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy. Baseline measurements were made in the supine, supine-lithotomy and Trendelenburg (25-30 degrees) positions in awake patients. Measurements were repeated in the supine-lithotomy and Trendelenburg positions after induction of anesthesia, during laparoscopy 5 minutes after the beginning of peritoneal CO2-insufflation (intra-abdominal pressure 13-16 mmHg) and at 15-minute intervals thereafter, after laparoscopy in the Trendelenburg and supine positions, after extubation and in the recovery room at 30-minute intervals. Patients received balanced general anesthesia with isoflurane in 35% O2 in an oxygen/air mixture. End tidal PCO2 was maintained between 4.5-4.8 kPa (33-36 mmHg) by changing the minute volume of controlled ventilation. The Trendelenburg position in awake and anesthetized patients increased pulmonary arterial pressures (PAP), central venous pressure (CVP) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP). These pressures increased further at the start of CO2-insufflation, decreased towards the end of the laparoscopy and reached pre-insufflation levels after deflation of pneumoperitoneum. The mean arterial pressure (MAP) increased at the beginning of laparoscopy in comparison with the pre-laparoscopic values. Heart rate (HR) was quite stable during laparoscopy. The cardiac index (CI) decreased with anesthesia from 3.8 to 3.2 1.min-1.m-2 and further during laparoscopy to 2.7 1.min-1.m-2, returning to pre-insufflation values soon after deflation. The stroke index (SI) changed in concert with the CI changes. The right ventricular stroke work index decreased during laparoscopy more than the left ventricular stroke work index. The right atrial pressure (CVP) exceeded the PCWP more often during laparoscopy than during any other phase of the procedure. Anesthesia and the Trendelenburg position increased the CVP, PCWP and pulmonary arterial pressures and decreased cardiac output. Pneumoperitoneum increased these pressures further mostly in the beginning of the laparoscopy, and cardiac output decreased towards the end of the laparoscopy. The risk of systemic CO2-embolus was increased during laparoscopy.

No abstract

No abstract

The clinical and pharmacokinetic properties of ropivacaine and bupivacaine, both 5 mg/mL, used in axillary plexus block were compared in 60 patients in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. The axillary plexus was identified with a nerve stimulator and 30, 35, or 40 mL of drug, depending on body weight, was injected into the perivascular sheath. In 20 patients, venous blood samples for the pharmacokinetic measurement were obtained over 24 h. The median onset times for anesthesia and complete motor block were in the range of 12-48 min and 5-20 min, respectively. Thirty-eight percent of patients in the ropivacaine group and 29% in the bupivacaine group needed additional nerve block(s) or supplementary analgesia and 7% in the bupivacaine group needed general anesthesia for surgery. Anesthesia was achieved in 52%-86% of the evaluated six nerves in the ropivacaine group and in 36%-87% in the bupivacaine group; the lowest figures were seen in the musculocutaneous nerve. In the pharmacokinetic study the mean peak plasma concentrations (Cmax) were 1.28 +/- 0.21 mg/L in the ropivacaine group and 1.28 +/- 0.47 mg/L in the bupivacaine group and the median times to peak plasma concentration (tmax) were 0.86 h and 0.96 h, respectively. The median terminal half-lives (t1/2) were 7.1 h and 11.5 h in the ropivacaine group and the bupivacaine group, respectively (P = 0.07). No statistically significant differences were found between ropivacaine and bupivacaine in either the clinical or the pharmacokinetic comparisons.

No abstract

No abstract

The inadequacy of pain treatment has been demonstrated in many patient groups suffering from acute pain. The injectable nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including indomethacin, diclofenac, ketoprofen and ketorolac, provide relief from the pain associated with several different conditions. When administered alone or in combination with low doses of opioids, NSAIDs provide good pain relief after musculoskeletal trauma or operation. The main advantage of these agents is that they may form the first-line therapy for pain relief and thus decrease the need of opioids. This avoids respiratory depression which can be associated with opioids. In contrast to opioids, NSAIDs do not cause respiratory depression or have marked adverse effects on the central nervous system. However, they may be associated with adverse effects of the gastrointestinal tract, liver and kidneys, and may increase pre- and postoperative bleeding and cause allergic reactions. These effects are related to the ability of NSAIDs to inhibit prostaglandin synthesis. Use of NSAIDs has to be considered carefully in patients with asthma, allergy to aspirin and NSAIDs, atopy, peptic ulcer or bleeding disorders (such as abnormalities in blood coagulation or coagulation deficits). These considerations are especially important in elderly patients. Having taken these contraindications into account, many clinical studies have demonstrated that NSAIDs are at least as safe as opioids when administered in the short term. However, few studies have specifically monitored adverse effects or included patients over 65 to 70 years of age. In addition, patients with risk factors have often been excluded from the trials. Therefore, the risk-benefit ratio of NSAIDs requires further assessment.