Optimization of anesthesia antiemetic measures versus combination therapy using dexamethasone or ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: More than half of the patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy experience postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This condition is related to the surgical, anesthetic, and patient factors. Volatile anesthetics, nitrous oxide, and opioids are known anesthetic risk factors for PONV, and thus preventive measures are justified. Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), ondansetron, and dexamethasone each are reported to reduce PONV by approximately 30%. Avoiding or reducing perioperative narcotic analgesics, use of an 80% oxygen concentration, and proper intravenous fluid administration also reduce PONV. The anesthetic antiemetic measures have been studied separately. This study aimed to test the efficacy of these anesthetic antiemetic measures collectively with or without ondansetron or dexamethasone in preventing PONV among patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: For this study, 160 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholycestectomy (33 males and 147 females) were randomized into one of three groups. Group O received 4 mg of ondansetron; group D received 8 mg of dexamethasone; and group P received normal saline immediately after induction of anesthesia. All the patients received propofol-based TIVA, 80% oxygen concentration, 20 ml/kg of Hartman's solution, and 1.5 mg/kg of tramadol. Opioids, nitrous oxide, and volatile anesthetics were not used for any patient. Episodes of PONV were recorded at 0- to 4-h and 4- to 24-h intervals. RESULTS: The incidences of PONV were 32% in the ondansetron group, 30% in the dexamethasone group, and 33% in the saline group. There were no significant differences among the groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Ondansetron or dexamethasone added to collective anesthetic antiemetic measures does not further decrease the incidence of PONV after laparoscopic cholycestectomy.

Intraoperative administration of dexmedetomidine reduces the analgesic requirements for children undergoing hypospadius surgery.

BACKGROUND: The present study was designed to assess whether an intraoperative administration of dexmedetomidine would decrease the intraoperative and postoperative analgesic requirements for paediatric patients undergoing hypospadius surgery. METHODS: Forty-eight children (American Society of Anesthesiologists-1) aged 1-12 years undergoing hypospadius repair under general anaesthesia were randomly assigned into dexmedetomidine or placebo groups, D and P, respectively. Group D received a loading dose of dexmedetomidine 1 microg kg(-1) after induction of anaesthesia, followed by a continuous infusion at a rate of 0.7 microg kg(-1) h(-1). Group P received a volume-matched 0.9% saline. Both groups received fentanyl for intraoperative analgesia and intravenous morphine and oral paracetamol for postoperative analgesia. For both groups, heart rate, blood pressure and fentanyl requirements were recorded intraoperatively. During their stay for 2 h in the recovery room, heart rate, blood pressure, pain scores, behaviour scores and total morphine requirements were recorded. After discharge from postanaesthesia care unit, paracetamol requirements over 24 h were also recorded. RESULTS: Intraoperatively, the dexmedetomidine-treated group had significantly fewer fentanyl requirements, slower heart rate and lower mean arterial blood pressure (P < 0.001). In the postanaesthesia care unit, this group also consumed significantly less morphine, had lower pain scores, lower behaviour score in the immediate postoperative period, lower heart rates and mean arterial blood pressures when compared with the placebo group (P < 0.001). Group D consumed significantly less paracetamol than group P in the ward over 24 h. CONCLUSION: Intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine intraoperatively during hypospadius repair in children reduces intraoperative and postoperative analgesic requirements and lowers heart rate and blood pressure.

Intravenous dexmedetomidine prolongs bupivacaine spinal analgesia.

BACKGROUND: The prolongation of spinal anesthesia by using clonidine through the oral, intravenous and spinal route has been known. The new alpha 2 agonist, dexmedetomidine has been proved to prolong the spinal anesthesia through the intrathecal route. We hypothesized that dexmedetomidine when administered intravenously following spinal block, also prolongs spinal analgesia. METHODS: 48 patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups following receiving spinal isobaric bupivacaine 12.5 mg. Patients in group D received intravenously a loading dose of 1 microg/kg dexmedetomidine over 10 min and a maintenance dose of 0.5 microg/kg/hr. Patients in group C (the control group) received normal saline. The regression times to reach S1 sensory level and Bromage 0 motor scale, hemodynamic changes and the level of sedation were recorded. RESULTS: The duration of sensory block was longer in intravenous dexmedetomidine group compared with control group (261.5 +/- 34.8 min versus 165.2 +/- 31.5 min, P < 0.05). The duration of motor block was longer in dexmedetomidine group than control group (199 +/- 42.8 min versus 138.4 +/- 31.3 min, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Intravenous dexmedetomidine administration prolonged the sensory and motor blocks of bupivacaine spinal analgesia with good sedation effect and hemodynamic stability.

Duration of venous occlusion with lidocaine for preventing propofol induced pain.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of the venous occlusion duration using lidocaine on the incidence and severity of propofol induced pain. METHODS: A prospective double-blind randomized study was designed at Jordan University Hospital, Amman, Jordan between October 2007 and November 2007. One hundred and fifty patients aged 14-70 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) clinical status I and II who underwent elective surgeries under general anesthesia, were divided into 3 groups. All 3 groups had propofol 1% infusion at a constant rate after applying venous occlusion with lidocaine. The occlusion was applied for 15 seconds (group I, n=50), 30 seconds (group II, n=50) and 60 seconds (group III, n=50). Pain was assessed during injection according to a verbal pain score. RESULTS: Fourteen patients 28% had pain in group I, compared to 16 patients 32% in group II, and 9 patients 18% in group III. This difference did not reach statistical significance p>0.05 for the incidence and severity of pain. CONCLUSION: While venous occlusion with lidocaine is an effective method in relieving propofol induced pain, we found no difference when the duration of venous occlusion was 15, 30, or 60 seconds.

Rapid sequence induction and intubation with 1 mg/kg rocuronium bromide in cesarean section, comparison with suxamethonium.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that Rocuronium Bromide can be used for rapid sequence induction in emergency conditions. METHODS: Our study was performed between December 2005 and May 2006 in Jordan University Hospital, Jordan. We studied the efficacy and intubating conditions after administrating of Rocuronium Bromide 1 mg/kg at 60 second in group of 60 pregnant women undergoing elective or emergency cesarean section and compared the results with those obtained after giving Suxamethonium 1 mg/kg at 60 seconds in a group of patients similar to the Rocuronium group. RESULTS: Intubating conditions after 1 mg /kg of Rocuronium Bromide were found to be acceptable (good and excellent) in 95% of patients and were similar to the Suxamethonium group (97%). The endotracheal tube could be passed through the vocal cards of all patients enrolled in the study. CONCLUSION: Rocuronium Bromide 1 mg/kg can be safely used for rapid sequence induction in cesarean section and the intubating conditions are similar to those of Suxamethonium.

Venous occlusion with lidocaine for preventing propofol induced pain. A prospective double-blind randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: Pain is a well-known complication of intravenous administration of propofol, and to find out the optimal method to decrease this pain, we studied 4 methods of delivering propofol. METHODS: The study took place at Jordan University Hospital, Amman, Jordan between November 2004 and March 2005 on 200 patients. The patients were divided into 4 groups, group I (n=50), the control group, propofol 1% was given alone. Group II (n=50), patients received propofol 1% premixed with 40 mg of lidocaine. Group III (n=50), patients received propofol 1% 60 seconds after giving 40 mg of lidocaine. Group IV (n=50), patients had venous occlusion for 60 seconds with the use of lidocaine 1% (40 mg), followed by release of the occlusion and administration of the propofol. Pain was assessed during injection and categorized into: no pain, pain, and pain with behavioral changes. RESULTS: In group I (control), 35 patient complained of pain, compared to 26 in group II, 23 in group III, and 7 patients in group IV, with a significant reduction in the incidence and intensity of pain in group II, III, and IV compared with the control (p<0.005). The best reduction of intensity and incidence was achieved in group VI, when compared with groups I, II and III (p<0.005), with no statistical difference between group II and III when compared with each other. CONCLUSION: Of the 4 methods studied, the optimal method to decrease the incidence and intensity of pain resulting from propofol injection is to inject lidocaine while applying venous occlusion for 60 seconds prior to administering propofol.

Periosteal chondroma of the clavicle: case report and review of the literature.

Periosteal chondromas (juxtacortical chondromas), are slow growing, rare cartilaginous lesion that arises adjacent to the cortex beneath the periosteum. They occur more in males in their 20s. We report a rare case of periosteal chondroma arising from the left clavicle of a 56 year old male. We could only find one reported case in the English literature of periosteal chondroma arising from the research and to the best of our knowledge, this is the second reported case.