Preoperative anxiety is a major problem in children leading to a poor outcome. Preanesthetic oral ketamine is generally used in children but has less bioavailability due to the first-pass effect. Even ketamine has an unpleasant taste. Preanesthetic inhaled ketamine is also reported effective and safe in children. The objectives of the study were to compare the effectiveness and safety of preanesthetic nebulized ketamine against preanesthetic oral ketamine for sedation and postoperative pain management in children. Children received 10 mg/kg oral ketamine (children received preanesthetic oral ketamine [OK cohort], n = 142), or nebulized with 3 mg/kg ketamine (children were preanesthetic nebulized with ketamine [NK cohort], n = 115), or received apple juice (children suspectable to preoperative ketamine and received apple juice only [OA cohort], n = 126) before anesthesia for elective surgery. Data regarding preoperative hemodynamic parameters, sedation score measurements, postoperative pain management, postoperative nausea and vomiting management, and postoperative complications were collected and analyzed. Preoperative hemodynamic parameters for oral and nebulized ketamine administration were stable. Nebulized ketamine was provided higher sedation than apple juice ( P = .002, q = 4.859) and oral ketamine ( P = .002, q = 3.526). Children of NK cohort had required fewer fentanyl consumption until discharge than those of OA (55.45 ± 7.19 μG/ child vs 65.15 ± 15.24 μG/ child, P < .0001, q = 9.859) and OK (55.45 ± 7.19 μG/child vs 60.19 ± 8.12 μG/child, P < .0001, q = 4.953) cohorts. Children of the NK cohort had consumed higher ondansetron syrup than those of the OA cohort but fewer than those of the OK cohort until discharge. Gastrointestinal side effects were reported in the OK cohort, and nose irritation and drowsiness were reported in the NK cohort. Like preanesthetic oral ketamine, preanesthetic inhaled ketamine also has safety for children. Preanesthetic inhaled ketamine can provide effective sedation in low doses during operation than preanesthetic oral ketamine. Level of evidence: III.
BACKGROUND Given a low first-pass success rate of the conventional SAX (short-axis) or LAX (long-axis) approach, ultrasound-guided radial artery cannulation in adults with radial artery diameter less than 2.2 mm may be still challenging. OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of modified long-axis in-plane(M-LAIP) versus short-axis out-of-plane (SAOP) or conventional palpation(C-P) approaches for ultrasound-guided radial artery cannulation. DESIGN A prospective, randomized and controlled trial. SETTING Operating room in a tertiary university hospital, from 1 July 2018 to 24 November 2018. PATIENTS A total of 201 patients (age 18 to 85 years, the diameter of the radial artery less 2.2 mm) were included. Patients with history of forearm surgery, ulnar artery occlusion, abnormal Allen test, etc, were excluded from this study. INTERVENTIONS All patients were randomized 1:1:1 to M-LAIP, SAOP or C-P. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the cannulation success rate. Secondary outcomes included first location time and cannulation time, number of attempts. RESULTS The cannulation success rate was significantly higher in the M-LAIP group than in the SAOP group or C-P group (first success rate: 80.3% vs 53.8% or 33.8%; p =0.000; total success rate: 93.9% vs 78.5% or 50.8%; p =0.000). First location time (s) was significantly longer in the M-LAIP group compared with the SAOP group (31(28-35[12-44]) vs 15(14-17[10-21]); p =0.000) and the C-P group (31(28-35[12-44]) vs 12(8-13.5 [6-37]); p =0.000). However, the time of cannulation in the M-LAIP group (29(24-45[16-313])) was significantly shorter than that in the SAOP group (45(28.5-135.5[14-346]), p =0.002) and in the C-P group(138(27-308[12-363]), p =0.000). The number of attempts decreased in the M-LAIP group compared with SAOP or C-P group. CONCLUSION The M-LAIP procedure for ultrasound-guided radial artery cannulation can offer a higher success rate of the first-attempt and total cannulation, fewer attempts and less time of cannulation.
Background and objectiveUltrasound has been widely used in the diagnosis and minimally invasive treatment of peripheral nerve diseases in the clinic, but there is still a lack of feasibility analysis in rodent models of neurological disease. The purpose of this study was to investigate the changes in the cross-sectional area of the sciatic nerve of different genders and body weights and to explore the effectiveness and reliability of an ultrasound-guided block around the sciatic nerve in living rats.MethodsUsing ultrasound imaging anatomy of the sciatic nerve of rats, the cross-sectional area of the sciatic nerve in rats of different genders from 6 to 10 weeks old was calculated, and then analyzed its correlation with body weight. Further analyses were conducted through behavioral and cadaveric studies to evaluate the feasibility of ultrasound-guided perineural injection of the sciatic nerve in rats.ResultsWe first reported that the sciatic nerve cross-sectional area of rats was increased with age (F = 89.169, P < 0.001), males had a higher sciatic nerve cross-sectional area than females (F = 60.770, P < 0.001), and there was a positive correlation with body weight (rMale = 0.8976, P < 0.001; rFemale = 0.7733, P < 0.001). Behavioral observation of rats showed that the lower extremity complete block rate was 80% following the administration of drugs around the sciatic nerve under ultrasound guidance and staining with methylene blue occurred in all sciatic nerves and surrounding muscles and fascia using 20 ultrasound-guided injections.ConclusionsUltrasound visualization technology can be used as a new auxiliary evaluation and intervention therapy for animal models of peripheral nerve injury, and will provide overwhelming new references for the basic research of neurological diseases.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.