DIA using M-mode sonography showed a linear correlation with VC measured by spirometry throughout the postoperative period. We conclude that using the M-mode sonographic technique at the bedside can be a practical way to investigate postoperative diaphragmatic dysfunction, and may also be an effective bedside screening method for diaphragmatic paralysis.
PurposeWe investigated the effect of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RLRP) in patients at low risk of developing PONV, in comparison to balanced anesthesia with desflurane.Materials and MethodsSixty two patients were randomly assigned to the Des or TIVA group. Propofol and remifentanil were used for induction of anesthesia in both groups and for maintenance of the anesthesia in the TIVA group. In the Des group, anesthesia was maintained with desflurane and remifentanil. In both groups, postoperative pain was controlled using fentanyl-based intravenous patient controlled analgesia, and ramosetron 0.3 mg was administered at the end of surgery. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea and pain, and requirements of rescue antiemetics and analgesics were recorded.ResultsThe incidence of nausea in the post-anesthetic care unit was 22.6% in the Des group and 6.5% in the TIVA (p=0.001) group. The incidence of nausea at postoperative 1-6 hours was 54.8% in the Des group and 16.1% in the TIVA group (p=0.001). At postoperative 6-48 hours, there were no significant differences in the incidence of nausea between groups.ConclusionIn order to prevent PONV after RLRP in the early postoperative period, anesthesia using TIVA with propofol is required regardless of patient-related risk factors.
The propofol-remifentanil combination was associated with a higher incidence of desaturation. The dexmedetomidine-remifentanil combination was associated with inadequate sedation in one half of the patients, even though it produced less respiratory depression. Addition of remifentanil reduced the cough reflex.
Intraocular pressure increases after pneumoperitoneum and the steep Trendelenburg position are established. This increase is less with propofol than with sevoflurane anesthesia. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01744262.
BackgroundThis study aimed to determine whether continuous deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) improves the surgical conditions and facilitates robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) under low intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) to attenuate the increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) during CO2 pneumoperitoneum in the steep Trendelenburg (ST) position.MethodsSixty-seven patients undergoing RALRP were randomly assigned to a moderate NMB group (Group M), including patients who received atracurium infusion until the end of the ST position, maintaining a train of four count of 1–2; and the deep NMB group (Group D), including patients who received rocuronium infusion, maintaining a post-tetanic count of 1–2. IOP was measured in all patients at nine separate time points. All RALRPs were performed by one surgeon, who rated the overall and worst surgical conditions at the end of the ST position.ResultsThe highest IOP value was observed at T4 (60 min after the ST position) in both Group M (23.3 ± 2.7 mmHg) and Group D (19.8 ± 2.1 mmHg). RALRP was accomplished at an IAP of 8 mmHg in 88% Group D patients and 25% Group M patients. The overall surgical condition grade was 4.0 (3.0–5.0) in Group D and 3.0 (2.0–5.0) in Group M (P < 0.001).ConclusionThe current study demonstrated that continuous deep NMB may improve surgical conditions and facilitate RALRP at a low IAP, resulting in significant attenuation of the increase on IOP. Moreover, low-pressure pneumoperitoneum, facilitated by deep NMB still provided acceptable surgical conditions.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02109133
PurposeThis analysis was done to investigate the optimal regimen for fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) by finding a safe and effective background infusion rate and assessing the effect of adding adjuvant drugs to the PCA regimen.Materials and MethodsBackground infusion rate of fentanyl, type of adjuvant analgesic and/or antiemetic that was added to the IV-PCA, and patients that required rescue analgesics and/or antiemetics were retrospectively reviewed in 1827 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominal surgery at a single tertiary hospital.ResultsUpon multivariate analysis, lower background infusion rates, younger age, and IV-PCA without adjuvant analgesics were identified as independent risk factors of rescue analgesic administration. Higher background infusion rates, female gender, and IV-PCA without additional 5HT3 receptor blockers were identified as risk factors of rescue antiemetics administration. A background infusion rate of 0.38 µg/kg/hr [area under the curve (AUC) 0.638] or lower required rescue analgesics in general, whereas, addition of adjuvant analgesics decreased the rate to 0.37 µg/kg/hr (AUC 0.712) or lower. A background infusion rate of 0.36 µg/kg/hr (AUC 0.638) or higher was found to require rescue antiemetics in general, whereas, mixing antiemetics with IV-PCA increased the rate to 0.37 µg/kg/hr (AUC 0.651) or higher.ConclusionBackground infusion rates of fentanyl between 0.12 and 0.67 µg/kg/hr may safely be used without any serious side effects for IV-PCA. In order to approach the most reasonable background infusion rate for effective analgesia without increasing postoperative nausea and vomiting, adding an adjuvant analgesic and an antiemetic should always be considered.
The S2-3 approach can be applied as a useful fallback method to the conventional landmark approach in children, especially in those older than 36 months who present with difficult identification of the sacral hiatus.
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.