Introduction:Endotracheal intubation is essential during general anesthesia and muscle relaxant drugs provide ideal conditions for this purpose. The objective of this study was to evaluate the intubating condition of remifentanil combined with propofol without muscle relaxant.Materials and Methods:In this prospective randomized study, 60 children aged 3-12 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II were included. All the children were premedicated with 0.05 mg/kg midazolam and 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine 5 min before the induction of anesthesia with 3 mg/kg propofol. Then, they were allocated randomly to receive either 2 μg/kg remifentanil (group R) or 1.5 mg/kg succinylcholine (group S). Tracheal intubation was attempted 90 s after the administration of propofol. The quality of intubation was assessed by using Copenhagen score based on jaw relaxation, ease of laryngoscopy, position of vocal cord, coughing and limb movement. Heart rate and blood pressure were recorded before and after induction, and 1, 3, 5 min after intubation.Results:There was no significant difference in intubating condition between the two groups (P = 0.11). Intubation condition was excellent in 26 of 30 (86.7%) patients in the group R compared with 30 (100%) patients in the group S. We observed significant difference in heart rate and systolic blood pressure over time between two groups (P = 0.02, P = 0.03 respectively). After intubation, we had higher heart rate and systolic blood pressure with a significant difference in group S compared with group R (P = 0.006, P = 0.018). None of the children had a chest rigidity, laryngospasm, and hypoxia.Conclusions:In premedicated children, propofol-remifentanil combination provides adequate conditions for tracheal intubation that is comparable with succinylcholine. Hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation was controlled better in group R.
Metoclopramide, rather than lidocaine pretreatment, may be a reasonable analgesic alternative to decrease pain from a diazepam injection, especially when there is a medical condition in which lidocaine should be used very cautiously.
Context:Analgesia is based on balanced anaesthesia, which is usually maintained by administration of narcotic agents. In some patients, it is not possible to use narcotics. We compared hemodynamic changes, anaesthesia depth, emetic sequelae and post-operative pain between sodium Diclofenac, Ketamine-Propofol (DKP) and Fentanyl-Midazolam (FM).Aims:The effectiveness of an anaesthetic technique employing sodium was compared against in patients undergoing elective surgery.Settings and Design:In a clinical trial study, 82 patients who attended for an elective surgery were randomly divided into two groups.Materials and Methods:In DKP group pre-medication included Sodium Diclofenac 1 mg/kg and Midazolam 0.02 mg/kg, whereas, in FM group they were Fentanyl 2 μg/kg and Midazolam 0.02 mg/ kg. Anaesthesia induction in both groups was the same. Anaesthesia was conserved in DKP group by using Propofol plus Ketamine infusion plus N2O 50% and in FM group with Fentanyl plus Midazolam plus N2O 50%. Hemodynamic changes, depth of anaesthesia, nausea and vomiting, post operative analgesic effects were recorded.Results:Hemodynamic changes and depth of anaesthesia were similar throughout the maintenance phase in two groups. In FM group, significant increase in heart rate was recorded in recovery room. Pain score according to visual analogue scale (VAS) and need for analgesics, was significantly more in FM group compared to DKP group (P = 0.000). No patient suffered from nausea, vomiting or hallucinations.Conclusions:This study revealed that intravenous administration of Sodium Diclofenac along with Ketamine and Propofolplus N2O 50% for general anaesthesia provides a balanced anaesthesia as well as hemodynamic stability, and adequate depth of anaesthesia. It also reduces the postoperative pain and need for narcotics. We recommended DKP plus N2O 50% method for patients prohibited from opioid administration. It will be an acceptable method in sensitive patients.
Background:Pain and shivering are two challenging components in the post operative period. Many drugs were used for prevention and treatment of them. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of prophylactic prescription of diclofenac suppository versus intravenous (IV) pethidine in spinal anesthesia.Materials and Methods:We conducted a multi central, prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial on a total of 180 patients who were scheduled for surgery under spinal anesthesia including 60 patients in three groups. Patients were randomly allocated to receive 100 mg sodium diclofenac suppository or 30 mg IV pethidine or placebo. Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed by Chi-square test, t-test, Mann-Whitney and ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests.Results:There was no statistical difference with regard to patient characteristics and hemodynamic indices among the three groups. Nine (15%), 10 (16.65%) and 24 (40%) of patients in diclofenac, pethidine and control groups reported pain and 2, 2, 7 patients received treatment due to it, respectively (P = 0.01). Prevalence of shivering in pethidine group and diclofenac group was the same and both of them were different from the control group (P < 0.001). Pruritus was repetitive in the pethidine group and was statistically significant (P = 0.036) but, post-operative nausea and vomiting was not significantly different among groups.Conclusion:A single dose of sodium diclofenac suppository can provide satisfactory analgesia immediately after surgery and decrease shivering without remarkable complications. This investigation highlights the role of pre-operative administration of a single dose of rectal diclofenac as a sole analgesic for early post-operative period.
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.