Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 2008
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative StudyIntraarticular injection of magnesium sulphate and/or bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia after arthroscopic knee surgery.
Intraarticular bupivacaine is often used for prevention of pain after arthroscopic knee surgery. Intraarticular magnesium, a N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor blocker, would be of particular interest in either producing postoperative analgesia or enhancing the analgesic effect of intraarticular bupivacaine. We designed this study to determine whether intraarticular magnesium sulfate or bupivacaine results in a decrease in visual analog scale (VAS) score followed by a decrease in analgesic requirement and whether their combination would provide more reduction in VAS, and subsequently less analgesic requirement, than either drug alone. ⋯ Magnesium combined with bupivacaine produces a reduction in postoperative pain when given intraarticularly in comparison to either bupivacaine or magnesium alone, or to saline placebo.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 2008
Comparative StudyEffects of a suction laryngoscope in a model with simulated severe airway hemorrhage.
In severe airway hemorrhage, simultaneous suction and laryngoscopy may render intubation difficult. We built a suction laryngoscope that consists of an adjustable stainless steel-guide tube fixed at the lingual surface of a standard Macintosh laryngoscope blade. Via this steel-guide tube, a large suction catheter can be inserted and positioned exactly to suction pharyngeal blood or vomitus, rendering simultaneous suctioning and laryngoscopy possible. ⋯ To assess whether our suction laryngoscope could provide better intubation conditions in comparison to a standard Macintosh laryngoscope in a bleeding airway scenario, 44 medical students intubated a manikin with severe simulated airway hemorrhage using our suction laryngoscope and a standard Macintosh laryngoscope in random order. There was no significant difference in time needed for intubation when using the suction versus the Macintosh laryngoscope (mean +/- SD: 43 +/- 13 vs 52 +/- 31 s; P = 0.07), but the number of esophageal intubations was significantly lower when using the suction laryngoscope [6 of 44 (13.6%) vs 19 of 44 (43.2%); P = 0.004]. In conclusion, when compared with a standard Macintosh laryngoscope, using a suction laryngoscope did not result in more rapid intubation, but significantly decreased the likelihood of esophageal intubations.