Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialMetabolic and hemodynamic changes during recovery and tracheal extubation in neurosurgical patients: immediate versus delayed recovery.
Delayed recovery has been advocated to limit the postoperative stress linked to awakening from anesthesia, but data on this subject are lacking. In this study, we measured oxygen consumption (V(O2)) and plasma catecholamine concentrations as markers of postoperative stress. We tested the hypothesis that delayed recovery and extubation would attenuate metabolic changes after intracranial surgery. Thirty patients were included in a prospective, open study and were randomized into two groups. In Group I, the patients were tracheally extubated as soon as possible after surgery. In Group II, the patients were sedated with propofol for 2 h after surgery. V(O2), catecholamine concentration, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) were measured during anesthesia, at extubation, and 30 min after extubation. V(O2) and noradrenaline on extubation and mean V(O2) during recovery were significantly higher in Group II than in Group I (V(O2) for Group I: preextubation 215 +/- 46 mL/min, recovery 198 +/- 38 mL/min; for Group II: preextubation 320 +/- 75 mL/min, recovery 268 +/- 49 mL/min; noradrenaline on extubation for Group I: 207 +/- 76 pg/mL, for Group II: 374 +/- 236 pg/ mL). Extubation induced a significant increase in MAP. MAP, HR, and adrenaline values were not statistically different between groups. In conclusion, delayed recovery after neurosurgery cannot be recommended as a mechanism of limiting the metabolic and hemodynamic consequences from emergence from general anesthesia. ⋯ In this study, we tested the hypothesis that delayed recovery after neurosurgery would attenuate the consequences of recovery from general anesthesia. As markers of stress, oxygen consumption and noradrenaline blood levels were higher after delayed versus early recovery. Thus, delayed recovery cannot be recommended as a mechanism of limiting the metabolic and hemodynamic consequences from emergence after neurosurgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe effectiveness of preemptive analgesia varies according to the type of surgery: a randomized, double-blind study.
The reliability of preemptive analgesia is controversial. Its effectiveness may vary among anatomical areas or surgical types. We evaluated preemptive analgesia by epidural morphine in six surgery types in a randomized, double-blind manner. Pain intensity was rated using a visual analog scale, a verbal report, and a measurement of postsurgical morphine consumption. Preemptive analgesia was effective in limb surgery and mastectomy, but ineffective for gastrectomy, hysterectomy, herniorrhaphy, and appendectomy. Relief of postsurgical pain in hemiorrhaphy was more rapid than that in the other surgery types. Preemptive analgesia was effective in limb surgery and mastectomy, but not in surgeries involving laparotomy, regardless of whether the surgery was major (gastrectomy and hysterectomy) or minor (herniorrhaphy and appendectomy). These results suggest that viscero-peritoneal nociception is involved in postsurgical pain. The abdominal viscera and peritoneum are innervated both heterosegmentally (in duplicate or triplicate by the vagus and/or phrenic nerves) and segmentally (by the spinal nerves). Therefore, supraspinal and/or cervical spinal neurons might be sensitized, despite the blockade of the segmental nerves with epidural morphine. The rapid retreat of the pain after hemiorrhaphy suggests that central sensitization remits soon after minor surgery, but that in appendicitis, it may be protracted by additional noxious stimuli, such as infection. ⋯ Epidural preemptive analgesia was reliably effective in limb and breast surgeries but ineffective in abdominal surgery, suggesting involvement of the brainstem and cervical spinal cord via the vagus and phlenic nerves.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialComparison of vital capacity induction with sevoflurane to intravenous induction with propofol for adult ambulatory anesthesia.
We compared vital capacity inhaled induction (VC) with sevoflurane with i.v. induction with propofol for adult ambulatory anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 8% sevoflurane in 75% N2O/O2 from a primed circuit (VC, 32 patients) or propofol 2-mg/kg bolus (i.v., 24 patients). Times to loss of consciousness (response to command) and induction side effects (airway, hemodynamic, motor) were assessed. Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane/N2O via a face mask for both groups. At the end of surgery, recovery times were measured and psychomotor function tests were performed. Patients were also asked to assess the quality of their anesthesia. Of the VC patients, 59% lost responsiveness in one breath, taking 39 +/- 3 s. All VC patients completed the induction, and all measures of induction time were significantly shorter for VC than for i.v. Induction side effects were different in the two groups (cough and hiccough for VC versus movement and blood pressure changes for i.v.), but overall incidences were similar. There were no significant differences in any index of early or intermediate recovery. Mild nausea occurred more often with VC, but no antiemetics were needed, and discharge was not delayed. Patients' assessments of the quality of induction or wake up were not significantly different between VC and i.v. Thus, VC induction with sevoflurane is an acceptable alternative to propofol i.v. induction of general anesthesia for adult ambulatory surgical patients. ⋯ A vital capacity induction with sevoflurane produced a faster loss of consciousness and had side effects, recovery times, and patient satisfaction similar to that of a propofol induction in adults undergoing ambulatory surgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe efficacy of a simulated intravascular test dose in sevoflurane-anesthetized children: a dose-response study.
A recent study demonstrated that changes in both heart rate (HR; positive if > or = 10bpm increase) and T-wave amplitude (positive if > or = 25% increase) reliably detect accidental intravascular injection when a full test dose containing epinephrine 0.5 microg/kg is injected intravascularly. We designed this study to prospectively determine whether a smaller dose of epinephrine would produce reliable HR and T-wave changes in sevoflurane-anesthetized children. We studied 80 ASA physical status I infants and children (6-72 mo) undergoing elective surgeries during 1.0 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration sevoflurane and 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen. After the administration of i.v. atropine 0.01 mg/kg, the patients were randomly assigned to receive either i.v. saline (n = 20), an i.v. test dose (0.1 mL/kg) consisting of 1% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (epinephrine 0.5 microg/kg group, n = 20), an i.v. test dose (0.05 mL/kg) (epinephrine 0.25 microg/kg group, n = 20), or an i.v. test dose (0.025 mL/kg) (epinephrine 0.125 microg/kg group, n = 20) via a peripheral vein to simulate the intravascular injection of the test dose. HR and systolic blood pressure were recorded every 20 and 30 s, respectively, and T-wave amplitude of lead II was continuously recorded for subsequent analysis. After the i.v. injection of the test dose, all children in the epinephrine 0.5 and 0.25 microg/kg groups developed positive responses based on the peak T-wave amplitude, whereas all children in the epinephrine 0.5 microg/kg group and 17 children (85%) in the epinephrine 0.25 microg/kg group elicited a positive response according to the peak HR criterion. No false-positive responses were observed with saline injections. Children in the epinephrine 0.125 microg/kg group showed clinically unacceptable efficacy based on either criterion. We conclude that the efficacies of detecting an intravascular injection of the test dose based on the hemodynamic and T-wave criteria are reduced with smaller doses of epinephrine and that HR and T-wave changes are still useful indicators in most patients if epinephrine 0.25 microg/kg is accidentally injected intravascularly. ⋯ To determine whether an epidurally administered local anesthetic has been unintentionally injected into a blood vessel, a small dose of epinephrine is often added to a local anesthetic. We found that an increase in T-wave amplitude > or = 25% in lead II and a heart rate increase > or = 10 bpm are useful indicators for detecting the accidental intravascular injection of a small dose of epinephrine in sevoflurane-anesthetized children.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialLevobupivacaine for ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve block in children.