Scheduled Intravenous Acetaminophen Improves Patient Satisfaction With Postcraniotomy Pain Management: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Double-blind Study.

BACKGROUND: Postcraniotomy pain can be difficult to manage with opioids due to opioid-related side effects, including drowsiness, nausea/vomiting, confusion, and pupillary changes, potentially masking the signs of postoperative neurological deterioration. Intravenous (IV) acetaminophen, a nonopioid analgesic, has been reported to have opioid-sparing effects after abdominal and orthopedic surgeries. This study investigates whether IV acetaminophen has similar effects after craniotomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial, 100 adult patients scheduled to undergo supratentorial craniotomy for excision of a brain mass were randomized to receive either IV acetaminophen or placebo preincision and then every 6 hours for a total of 24 hours after surgery. Total 24-hour opioid consumption, pain scores, satisfaction with overall pain management, time to meet postanesthesia care unit discharge criteria, and incidence of opioid-related side effects were compared. RESULTS: There was no difference in the 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption in morphine equivalents between the IV acetaminophen group (median, 11 mg; n=45) and the placebo group (median, 10.1 mg; n=41). No statistically significant difference of visual analog scale pain score was observed between 2 treatment groups. Patient satisfaction with overall postoperative pain management was significantly higher in the IV acetaminophen group than the placebo group on a 1 to 10 scale (8.1±0.4 vs. 6.9±0.4; P=0.03). There was no significant difference in secondary outcomes, including the incidence of opioid-related side effects. CONCLUSIONS: IV acetaminophen, as adjunctive therapy for craniotomy procedures, did not show an opioid-sparing effect in patients for the 24 hours after craniotomy; however, it was associated with improved patient satisfaction regarding overall pain control.

Behavioral Disturbance Causing Sudden Respiratory Distress in a 3-Year-Old After Tracheocutaneous Fistula Closure: A Case Report.

A 3-year-old boy underwent tracheostomy at age 5 months for respiratory failure. The tracheostomy tube was removed a year later but a tracheocutaneous fistula developed requiring fistulectomy and primary skin closure. After an initial uneventful course in the postanesthesia care unit, the patient became agitated, began to scream, and suddenly developed rapidly progressing subcutaneous emphysema over his chest, face, and abdomen. Orotracheal intubation was emergently performed and chest radiograph revealed pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum. The child was taken to the operating room for placement of a tracheostomy tube.

Flexible optical intubation via the Ambu Aura-i vs blind intubation via the single-use LMA Fastrach: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare the Ambu Aura-i to the single-use LMA Fastrach regarding time to intubation, success rate, and airway morbidity in patients undergoing elective surgery requiring general anesthesia. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: Sixty-five adult patients scheduled for elective surgery requiring general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized into 2 groups. Group A (n=33) were intubated using Ambu Aura-i and the Ambu aScope 2, a disposable flexible intubating scope, whereas those in group B (n=33) were blindly intubated using the Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (ILMA). MEASUREMENTS: First-attempt intubation success rate, overall intubation success rate, time to intubation, incidence of airway morbidity. MAIN RESULTS: The data demonstrated that time for endotracheal intubation in the ILMA group was significantly shorter than in the Ambu Aura-i group (P<.05). There was no difference in the first-attempt intubation success rate (Aura-i=26/33, 78.8%; ILMA=27/33, 81.8%; P=.757) or the overall intubation success rate (Aura-i=29/33, 87.9%; ILMA=31/33, 93.9%; P=.392) between the groups. Four patients (12%) in the Ambu Aura-i group had a failed intubation; 1 was due to a failure of the aScope monitor, whereas 3 were due to inability to visualize the glottis. Two patients (7%) in the ILMA group had a failed intubation due to esophageal intubation. There was no statistically significant difference in airway morbidity between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that intubation with the ILMA is faster but that first-attempt and overall intubation success rates were comparable in both groups. The results suggest that although the flexible intubating scope-guided Aura-i does not outperform blind intubation via the ILMA, the technique is comparable in terms of first-attempt and overall intubation success rate.