PurposeIn many countries, patients are generally allowed to have clear fluids until 2–3 h before surgery. In Japan, long preoperative fasting is still common practice. To shorten the preoperative fasting period in Japan, we tested the safety and efficacy of oral rehydration therapy until 2 h before surgery.MethodsThree hundred low-risk patients scheduled for morning surgery in six university-affiliated hospitals were randomly assigned to an oral rehydration solution (ORS) group or to a fasting group. Patients in the ORS group consumed up to 1,000 ml of ORS containing balanced glucose and electrolytes: 500 ml between 2100 the night before surgery and the time they woke up the next morning and 500 ml during the morning of surgery until 2 h before surgery. Patients in the fasting group started fasting at 2100 the night before surgery. Primary endpoints were gastric fluid volume and pH immediately after anesthesia induction. Several physiological measures of hydration and electrolytes including the fractional excretion of sodium (FENa) and the fractional excretion of urea nitrogen (FEUN) were also evaluated.ResultsMean (SD) gastric fluid volume immediately after anesthesia induction was 15.1 (14.0) ml in the ORS group and 17.5 (23.2) ml in the fasting group (P = 0.30). The mean difference between the ORS group and fasting group was −2.5 ml. The 95% confidence interval ranged from −7.1 to +2.2 ml and did not include the noninferior limit of +8 ml. Mean (SD) gastric fluid pH was 2.1 (1.9) in the ORS group and 2.2 (2.0) in the fasting group (P = 0.59). In the ORS group, mean FENa and FEUN immediately after anesthesia induction were both significantly greater than those in the fasting group (P < 0.001 for both variables). The ORS group reported they had been less thirsty and hungry before surgery (P < 0.001, 0.01).ConclusionsOral rehydration therapy until 2 h before surgery is safe and feasible in the low-risk Japanese surgical population. Physicians are encouraged to use this practice to maintain the amount of water in the body and electrolytes and to improve the patient’s comfort.
The effects of different doses of propofol on post-electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) cognitive recovery were evaluated together with the effects on seizure duration and hemodynamic changes during ECT in 15 depressive patients. Propofol attenuated the increase in arterial blood pressure and heart rate in a dose-dependent manner compared with thiamylal. Propofol showed a clinically significant anticonvulsant effect during ECT in a dose-dependent manner. There were no significant differences among the four different induction groups in the mean recovery time from anesthesia, however, a low dose of propofol suppressed the early recovery of cognitive function. For early cognitive recovery after ECT, a deep anesthetic level is necessary when the traditional ECT apparatus is used which produces sine curve wave stimuli.
We report a case in which a mandibular nerve block using an indwelling catheter was employed for pain management in a terminal case of orofacial cancer. The patient was a 74-year-old female weighing 27 kg. She had a 27-month history of mouth floor and tongue cancer. The cancer recurred and spread to bilateral face and neck. The severest pain mainly originated from the right mandibular region. Two steps of pain relief were performed for the patient. First, pain control using 1% lidocaine or 0.25% bupivacaine administered intermittently or continuously through an indwelling catheter in the mandibular nerve was performed for 1 week to estimate the amount of pain relief thereby obtained. Second, a neurolytic block was applied to the mandibular nerve through the catheter. After the neurolytic block, the total dosage of morphine and diclofenac remained unchanged for 2 months. We conclude from the present case that this technique is an excellent means of obtaining long-term pain control in patients with intractable orofacial cancer pain.
BackgroundPregabalin is recommended as an adjuvant analgesic for neuropathic cancer-related pain, and may be taken at all steps of the World Health Organization analgesic ladder. However, unlike opioids, pregabalin treatments are limited to an oral administration route. If patients have oral feeding difficulties, it is not possible to administer any drug as an adjuvant analgesic for neuropathic cancer-related pain. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to clarify the problems of pain control after pregabalin discontinuation in terminally ill cancer patients.MethodsOur subjects comprised cancer patients who died during their hospital stay and were referred between April 2013 and October 2015 to the palliative care team of the 899-bed Cancer Hospital at the Nippon Medical School Hospital in Japan. The medical records of each patient were retrospectively reviewed, and patient characteristics were recorded.ResultsWe obtained data on 183 patients during the study period. Thirty-eight (20.8 %) patients were treated with pregabalin. Thirty-three (86.8 %) out of 38 patients were prescribed pregabalin for neuropathic cancer-related pain. The incidence of bony metastases was significantly higher in patients administered pregabalin than in those not taking the drug (non-pregabalin group 32.4 % vs pregabalin group 57.9 %). Pregabalin was ultimately discontinued in all patients, with the main reason being oral feeding difficulties (81.6 %). After the discontinuation of pregabalin, the amount of opioid drugs administered was increased in 56.5 % of patients with oral feeding difficulties.ConclusionOur results demonstrated that the amount of opioid drugs administered was increased in more than 50 % of patients following the discontinuation of pregabalin, and was repeatedly increased for some patients. A new administration route is required for cancer patients unable to take oral medication.Trial registration UMIN000022507. May 28, 2016 retrospectively registered.
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.