Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Dec 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialGabapentin for the treatment of pain in guillain-barré syndrome: a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study.
Pain syndromes of Guillain-Barré are neuropathic as well as nociceptive in origin. We aimed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of gabapentin in relieving the bimodal nature of pain in Guillain-Barré syndrome in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study in 18 patients admitted to the intensive care unit for ventilatory support. Patients were assigned to receive either gabapentin (15 mg. kg(-1). d(-1) in 3 divided doses) or matching placebo as initial medication for 7 days. After a 2-day washout period, those who previously received gabapentin received placebo, and those previously receiving placebo received gabapentin as in the initial phase. Fentanyl 2 micro g/kg was used as a rescue analgesic on patient demand or when the pain score was >5 on a numeric rating scale of 0-10. The numeric rating score, sedation score, consumption of fentanyl, and adverse effects were noted, and these observed variables were compared. The numeric pain score decreased from 7.22 +/- 0.83 to 2.33 +/- 1.67 on the second day after initiation of gabapentin therapy and remained low during the period of gabapentin therapy (2.06 +/- 0.63) (P < 0.001). There was a significant decrease in the need for fentanyl from Day 1 to Day 7 during the gabapentin therapy period (211.11 +/- 21.39 to 65.53 +/- 16.17 [ micro g]) in comparison to the placebo therapy period (319.44 +/- 25.08 to 316.67 +/- 24.25 [ micro g]) (P < 0.001). ⋯ Gabapentin, an antiepileptic drug, has been used effectively for different types of pain management. This study demonstrates that gabapentin has minimal side effects and is an alternative to opioids and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs for management of the bimodal nature of pain of Guillain-Barré Syndrome patients.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Dec 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialPercutaneous tracheostomy with single dilatation technique: a prospective, randomized comparison of Ciaglia blue rhino versus Griggs' guidewire dilating forceps.
Percutaneous tracheostomy with single-step dilation technique using Griggs' guidewire dilating forceps (GWDF) is a well-recognized procedure. Recently, Ciaglia has introduced a one-step dilation technique using a curved, gradually tapered dilator, the Ciaglia Blue Rhino (CBR). In a prospective, randomized study, we performed percutaneous tracheostomy in 60 consecutive patients, using either the CBR or the GWDF technique. Postoperatively, all patients had bronchoscopy by a blinded consultant, and stoma characteristics and injuries to the trachea were studied. Mean tracheostomy time (skin incision to insertion of tracheostomy tube) in the two procedures (CBR 7.5 min versus GWDF 6.5 min) was not different (P > 0.05). The GWDF technique was associated with under-dilation and over-dilation of the tracheal stoma, each in almost one-third of patients. In the CBR group, the procedure was associated with a significant increase in peak airway pressure (P < 0.05) in all patients. There were nine cases of tracheal cartilage rupture, three cases of longitudinal tracheal abrasion, and one pneumothorax. Three patients had tracheal in-drawing at the scar site with huskiness of voice at 8 wk after decannulation; however, none had any breathing difficulty. We conclude that the techniques are equally effective in the formation of percutaneous tracheostomy. However, tracheal stoma over-dilation with GWDF and increase in peak airway pressure and rupture of tracheal rings with CBR remain major concerns. ⋯ The tracheas of 60 patients were cannulated through an artificial opening by using a single-step dilation technique with Ciaglia Blue Rhino or Griggs' dilation forceps. The techniques were equally effective for cannulation of the trachea. However, Ciaglia Blue Rhino was associated with rupture of tracheal rings in one-third of patients and increased airway pressure in all, whereas the Griggs' technique was associated with under- or over-formation of the tracheal opening, each in one-third of patients.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Dec 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of ketamine and lidocaine spray with propofol for the insertion of laryngeal mask airway in children: a double-blinded randomized trial.
The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has been used successfully as both a ventilatory device and a conduit for tracheal intubation. In this double-blinded, randomized study, we examined whether pretreatment with lidocaine spray, ketamine anesthesia, and LMA insertion could be used as airway management that could maintain spontaneous breathing in children. After IV premedication with midazolam 0.05 mg/kg and glycopyrrolate 0.005 mg/kg, 90 patients were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 main groups for the administration of either propofol or ketamine: 40 patients received 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, or 4.0 mg/kg of propofol IV (n = 10 each), whereas 50 patients received 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, or 4.0 mg/kg of ketamine IV (n = 10 each). Only in the ketamine group was lidocaine spray applied to the oropharynx 1 min before anesthesia induction. After injection of the designated drug, self-respiration, airway obstruction, and jaw relaxation were checked. Self-respiration, laryngospasm coughing, gagging, swallowing, biting or tongue movements, secretions, and head or limb movements after LMA insertion were graded. All variables were graded as satisfactory, acceptable, or unsatisfactory. The overall result was considered satisfactory if all criteria were satisfactory; acceptable if all were better than acceptable, but at least one acceptable criterion was included; and unsatisfactory if at least one criterion was unsatisfactory. Overall satisfactory or acceptable results in every patient were achieved only in the ketamine 3.0 or 3.5 mg/kg subgroups. No propofol dose was completely satisfactory; most cases involved apnea or airway obstruction. Ketamine and lidocaine spray were appropriate for LMA insertion, which may be a safe method for management of difficult airway in children. ⋯ Ketamine and lidocaine spray appear to be appropriate for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion in children. Thus, apnea and airway obstruction, the two most serious and frequent complications of propofol, can be avoided during LMA insertion.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Dec 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialMinidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia in ambulatory surgery: prophylactic nalbuphine versus nalbuphine plus droperidol.
Minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia (SAB(MLF)) is a safe, effective, and efficient anesthetic for ambulatory surgery. Unfortunately, it has a frequent incidence of pruritus and a substantial incidence of nausea and vomiting. Nalbuphine is effective in treating or preventing pruritus after intrathecal or epidural morphine but may or may not have a beneficial effect on nausea and vomiting. Droperidol has demonstrated antiemetic efficacy with neuraxial opiates. In this study, we examined the prophylactic use of nalbuphine alone compared with nalbuphine with droperidol after SAB(MLF). One-hundred-twenty-four patients having outpatient knee arthroscopy under SAB(MLF) with 20 mg of lidocaine 0.5% and 20 micro g of fentanyl were randomized to receive IV at the end of surgery either 4 mg of nalbuphine (Group N) or droperidol 0.625 mg plus nalbuphine 4 mg (Group ND). The incidences of early (before discharge) and late onset nausea were, respectively, 18% versus 5% and 32% versus 13%. The postoperative incidences of pruritus were 61% versus 40%, whereas 19% of patients in Group N compared with 2% of patients in Group ND requested treatment for this. Group ND had lower pain scores and had a longer delay until first use of analgesic. There were no differences in average times to discharge. The only side effect of the medications was an increased drowsiness in Group ND. In conclusion, as prophylactic medication for use in conjunction with SAB(MLF), the addition of droperidol 0.625 mg to nalbuphine 4 mg was superior to nalbuphine alone. The combination provided for reduced postoperative nausea, pruritus, and pain-benefits that persisted after discharge home. The combination also avoided isolated cases of extreme delay in discharge. ⋯ Droperidol in combination with nalbuphine enhances analgesia and is more effective than nalbuphine alone in preventing pruritus, nausea, and vomiting after minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Dec 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialEpidural morphine and neostigmine for postoperative analgesia after orthopedic surgery.
In this study, we examined the side effects and analgesia of the combination of epidural neostigmine and morphine in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. Sixty patients undergoing knee surgery were divided into four groups. The intrathecal anesthetic was 15 mg of bupivacaine. The epidural test drug was diluted in saline to a final volume of 10 mL. The control group received saline as the epidural test drug. The morphine group received 0.6 mg of epidural morphine. The neostigmine group (NG) received 60 micro g of epidural neostigmine. The morphine/neostigmine group received 0.6 mg of epidural morphine combined with 60 micro g of epidural neostigmine. The groups were demographically the same and did not differ in intraoperative characteristics. The visual analog scale score at first rescue analgesic and the incidence of adverse effects were similar among groups (P > 0.05). One patient from the NG complained of intraoperative nausea, closely related to spinal hypotension. Postoperatively, two patients from the NG had vomited once. The time (min) to first rescue analgesic was longer in the morphine/neostigmine group ( approximately 11 h) compared with the other groups (P < 0.05). The analgesic consumption (number of analgesic administrations in 24 h) was larger in the control group compared with the other groups (P < 0.05). ⋯ The combination of epidural morphine and epidural neostigmine resulted in postoperative analgesia (11 h) devoid of side effects, being an alternative analgesic technique in the population studied.