Sufentanil-propofol vs remifentanil-propofol during total intravenous anesthesia for neurosurgery. A multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: In a randomised, prospective multi-centre study, we compared the intraoperative and postoperative effects of two opioids: sufentanil and remifentanil, in combination with propofol in two groups of patients undergoing neurosurgery. METHODS: After Local Ethics Committee approval and informed consent obtaining, 69 patients undergoing neurosurgery for supratentorial tumours, between 18 and 75 years of age were randomised to receive either sufentanil or remifentanil in combination with propofol. Intraoperative and postoperative haemodynamic variables, recovery times (time to eye opening and to extubation), the incidence of postoperative respiratory depression, pain, nausea and vomiting were also evaluated. The Short Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test was used to evaluate cognitive function at 15, 45 and 180 min after emergence from anesthesia. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups in the duration of surgery and anesthesia, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, time to eye opening or extubation. The incidence of vomiting, respiratory depression and shivering was similar in both groups. Postoperative pain requiring supplemental analgesics was significantly lower in the sufentanil group (P<0.05). Although there were no significant differences between the groups in postoperative behavioural examinations by Rancho Los Amigos Test, patients anesthetised with sufentanil had significantly better Short Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test values at 15 and 180 min postoperatively (P<0.05). CONCLUSION. We conclude that remifentanil and sufentanil are suitable adjunct to propofol for total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). Patients receiving sufentanil have reduced analgesic requirements and better cognitive function postoperatively than those who received remifentanil.

Infantile seborrheic dermatitis: seven-year follow-up and some prognostic criteria.

Based on clinical features, infantile seborrheic dermatitis (ISD) can be classified as follows: true seborrheic dermatitis (SD), psoriasiform seborrheic dermatitis (Psor SD), and erythrodermic seborrheic dermatitis. We reviewed the records of 72 children who had been affected by ISD several years earlier to investigate the evolution of disease, to evaluate the patients for the presence of new skin lesions, and to study family histories with respect to these conditions. In addition, we attempted to determine if there is any connection among the initial features of ISD and the types of skin lesions, and atopy or psoriasis. On reexamination, our patients previously diagnosed as having SD showed a larger variety of new skin lesions than those who had Psor SD, and 15% had developed atopic dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis was not present at follow-up in the children with previously diagnosed Psor SD. Psoriatic lesions were present in similar percentages in both groups at the time of reevaluation. Investigation of family history was not useful in predicting later development of psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. We conclude that the initial clinical features of ISD may be of prognostic value, and that SD and Psor SD are probably two different clinical entities.

Sutton's summer prurigo: a morphologic variant of atopic dermatitis.

We describe in detail 6 of 18 children affected by a recurrent summer papular eruption on the elbows, knees, and backs of the hands. In all six, family history, clinical observation, or laboratory data revealed signs of atopy. Phototesting, performed to evaluate the role of ultraviolet rays in the pathogenesis of the disease, gave results similar to those obtained in subjects with atopic dermatitis. Therefore we suggest that this disease may be a peculiar morphologic variant of atopic dermatitis.