Comparison of intubating conditions after induction with propofol and remifentanil or sufentanil : Randomized controlled REMIDENT trial for surgical tooth extraction.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare tracheal intubation conditions after induction of anesthesia with a bolus of propofol-sufentanil or propofol-remifentanil and a rapid induction technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 70 patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I­II) undergoing outpatient surgery under general anesthesia with intubation for tooth extraction were randomly assigned to two groups in this double-blind study. Patients received either a bolus of remifentanil (3 µg/kg) or sufentanil (0.3 µg/kg) together with 2.5 mg/kg propofol for intubation. The primary outcome was the percentage of excellent intubation conditions and the secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients with a decrease of over 20% in mean arterial pressure (MAP) or heart rate (HR), time to achieve spontaneous respiration, time between the end of surgery and extubation and time to achieve an Aldrete score of 10. VAS pain score was >3 or having laryngeal pain 15 min after arriving in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) were also analyzed. RESULTS: Intubating conditions (perfect + good conditions) were significantly better with remifentanil than with sufentanil (88.5% vs. 68.6%; p = 0.01). When using remifentanil, the hemodynamic conditions were good. Using remifentanil did not significantly increase the pain score or the laryngeal pain in the recovery room. This was confirmed by no significant differences between the groups for morphine consumption. Remifentanil significantly decreased the time to achieve an Aldrete score of 10. CONCLUSION: When intubation without muscle relaxants is required, intubating conditions are much better when a remifentanil bolus is used compared to a sufentanil bolus. The remifentanil/propofol rapid induction technique is a valuable technique to quickly intubate and achieve good conditions.

[Performance of ultra-wide field retinophotography for screening of diabetic retinopathy]. / Performance de la rétinophotographie en ultra-grand champ dans le dépistage de la rétinopathie diabétique.

INTRODUCTION: Early diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy is a public health issue. Fundus retinophotography (FRP) is widely used for the detection of the disease. Recently, ultra-wide field retinophotography (WFRP) device allows imaging of approximately 80% of the retinal surface in a single image. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of WFRP in the diagnosis and gradation of diabetic retinopathy compared to the gold standard of FRP. METHODS: The non-mydriatic Optos P200Tx was used for WFRP imaging. FRP in the 9 positions of gaze was then acquired with the Topcon TRC-NW6S after pupillary dilation. The processing time for each imaging modality was recorded. RESULTS: One hundred and sixteen eyes of 58 patients were included in this study. Fourteen eyes were excluded from the analysis due to insufficient imaging quality. WFRP sensitivity was 96% and specificity was 92%. Only 6 eyes received a higher severity grade of diabetic retinopathy by WFRP compared to FRP. In these cases, when the WFRP was analyzed in the same field as the FRP, the severity grade was similar for 5 of the 6 eyes. The mean time of acquisition was significantly lower for WFRP compared to FRP. CONCLUSION: WFRP is fast and effective in screening for diabetic retinopathy. The severity grade of the disease was similar to the gold standard of FRP in most cases. WFRP could thus be used in mass screening for diabetic retinopathy.