Background Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is a minimally invasive procedure, but patients may still experience intense pain, especially during the early postoperative period. Intrathecal morphine (ITM) is an effective pain control method that involves a simple maneuver and has a low risk of complications. This study aimed to study the effectiveness of ITM for pain control in patients who undergo VATS. Materials and methods A randomized controlled study was conducted who were in ASA classes 1–3, aged over 18 years, and scheduled for elective VATS. Patients were randomized into two groups: the ITM group (n = 19) received a single shot of 0.2 mg ITM before general anesthesia; and the control group (n = 19) received general anesthesia only. For 48 hours after surgery, other than intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) morphine, patients received no sedatives or opioid medications except for 500 mg acetaminophen four times daily orally. Postoperative pain scores and IVPCA morphine used, side effects, sedation at specific time-points, i.e., 1, 6, 12, 24, and 48-hours and overall treatment satisfaction scores were assessed. Results Postoperative pain scores (median [IQR]) in ITM group were significantly lower than control group (repeated-measure ANOVA, p = 0.006) and differed at the first (7 [2, 7] vs 8 [6, 9], p = 0.007) and sixth hours (3 [2, 5] vs 5 [5, 7], p = 0.002). The cumulative dose of post-operative morphine (median [IQR]) in ITM group was also lower (6 [3, 20] vs 19 [14, 28], p = 0.006). The incidence of pruritus was significantly higher in ITM group (68.42% vs. 26.32%, p = 0.009). No significant differences in nausea and vomiting, sedation scores, and satisfaction scores were observed between the two groups. Conclusion ITM could reduce pain scores and opioid consumption after VATS compared to IVPCA-opioids. However, pain scores and opioid consumption still remained high. No difference in patient satisfaction was detected.

Background Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation are strong stimuli that cause a reflex increase in blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and serum catecholamine level. These can lead to myocardial infarction or cerebrovascular accidents. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine combined with propofol in attenuating the hemodynamic response following laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. Methods This study was a randomized controlled study and adhered to the CONSORT guidelines. One-hundred and six patients undergoing elective general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were divided randomly into two groups. Group D received dexmedetomidine (1 μg kg− 1) before induction. Group LP received lidocaine (1.5 mg kg− 1) before induction with additional propofol (0.5 mg kg− 1) before laryngoscopy. The primary endpoint was hemodynamic including systolic (S) BP, diastolic (D) BP, mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and HR measured before and after induction and ≤ 10 min after intubation. Secondary outcome was complications/adverse effects. Results After induction, the mean SBP, DBP, MAP and HR decreased significantly from baseline in both groups except for mean HR in group LP at 1 min. Differences in mean values of SBP, DBP, and MAP were significantly lower in group D after intubation at 4–10 min (P <  0.05). Group LP had a non-inferior effect in blunting BP at all time points except 1 and 2 min after induction, and 2 min after intubation. The mean difference in HR in group D was significantly lower than that in group LP at all time points (P <  0.001). Group D had significantly more episodes of bradycardia (18.87% vs. 0%, P = 0.001) and hypotension (52.83% vs. 15.09%, P < 0.001) than did group LP. Conclusion Lidocaine (1.5 mg kg− 1) with additional propofol (0.5 mg kg− 1) had a non-inferior effect compared with dexmedetomidine (1 μg kg− 1) in attenuating the hemodynamic response following laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation, and had fewer adverse effects. Trial registration Thai Clinical Trial Registry, (TRTC20190206002). Retrospectively registered 4 February 2019.

Introduction Educational environment is an important factor in effective teaching and learning. Positive educational environments result in better academic achievements. Administrators are responsible for education at the department and faculty levels, and attention is given to the educational atmosphere by regularly measuring and evaluating various related factors including the subjective level of awareness and perception of residents. A teaching and learning system should include learning and environment assessment tools to allow residents to take good care of patients. Many educational environment assessment tools have been created to assess the quality of educational environments. Examples include the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) with 50 items, 1,2 the Postgraduate Hospital Education Environment Measure (PHEEM) with 40 items 3-7 and the Anesthetic Trainee Theatre Educational Environment Measure (ATEEM) with 40 items. 1,8,9 Anesthesiology is a fundamental branch of medicine. There are specific tools for different disciplines that are used only for each study group. These have a variance in the measurement of psychological quality (psychometric) but are considered the best basic tools for easy measurement. In 2004 Holt and Roff 1 developed the ATEEM, a standardized tool used to assess the perception of the educational atmosphere among anesthesiology residents. Medical schools in many countries have endorsed its use in the assessment of educational environments. At present, ATEEM has not yet been translated into Thai. This research is therefore a good starting point for systematically enhancing the strengths and improving the weaknesses of the educational atmosphere in the Department of Anesthesiology using ATEEM (Thai version). The researcher has chosen this tool to measure the level of perception of anesthesiology residents in their