Dexmedetomidine for Improved Quality of Emergence From General Anesthesia: A Dose-Finding Study.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine provides smooth and hemodynamically stable emergence at the expense of hypotension, delayed recovery, and sedation. We investigated the optimal dose of dexmedetomidine for prevention of cough, agitation, hypertension, tachycardia, and shivering, with minimal side effects. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial, 216 adult patients were randomly assigned to dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg (D 1), 0.5 µg/kg (D 0.5), 0.25 µg/kg (D 0.25), or control (C). During emergence, cough, agitation, hemodynamic parameters, shivering, time to extubation, and sedation scores were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 190 patients were analyzed. The respective incidences for the groups D 1, D 0.5, and D 0.25 versus group C were 48%, 64%, and 64% vs 84% for cough-corrected P < .003 between groups D 1 and C; 33%, 34%, and 33% vs 72% for agitation-corrected P < .003 between group C and each of the study groups; and 4%, 2%, and 7% vs 22% for shivering-corrected P = .03 and corrected P = .009 between groups D 1 and D 0.5 versus group C, respectively. The percent increase from baseline blood pressure on extubation for the 3 treatment groups was significantly lower than group C. Percent increase in heart rate was lower than control in groups D 1 and D 0.5 but not in group D 0.25. Time to extubation and sedation scores were comparable. However, more hypotension was recorded during the emergence phase in the 3 treatment groups versus group C. CONCLUSIONS: D 1 at the end of surgery provides the best quality of emergence from general anesthesia including the control of cough, agitation, hypertension, tachycardia, and shivering. D 0.5 also controls emergence phenomena but is less effective in controlling cough. The 3 doses do not delay extubation. However, they cause dose-dependent hypotension.

Mortality Rate and Mid-Term Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Dual Mobility Cups for the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fractures in a Middle Eastern Population.

BACKGROUND: The dual mobility cups (DMCs) were shown to reduce dislocation rate following total hip arthroplasty for any etiology, including femoral neck fractures. No reported studies evaluating DMC results for femoral neck fracture in a Middle Eastern population were found in the literature. METHODS: This study aims to look for mortality rate, clinical, and functional outcomes in a population having specific rituals involving extreme hip positions as part of their daily activities. RESULTS: Of an initial sample of 174 patients (177 operated hips), 18 (10.3%) patients (20 hips) died after a mean of 39.6 ± 13.8 months (ranging from 2 to 49 months) with only 3 (1.7%) during the first post-operative year. Twelve patients (13 hips) were lost to follow-up and 19 patients (19 hips) had their radiological data incomplete. In the final sample of 125 patients (125 hips), no dislocation, aseptic loosening, or infection was encountered. The mean modified Hip Harris Score was of 94.8 ± 8.4. The mean modified Hip Harris Score of 40 patients who used to practice regularly oriental sitting position or prayers was 94.1 ± 3.1. After surgery, 36 of these 40 patients (90%) described their hip as "a forgotten hip." Multivariate analyses found correlation only between mortality and cardiovascular co-morbidities. CONCLUSION: DMC implants showed excellent clinical and functional results. The majority of patients having rituals and customs involving extreme hip positions were able to resume their daily activities. The observed low mortality rate should incite future research to investigate its correlation with the use of DMCs.

Haloperidol Versus Ondansetron for Treatment of Established Nausea and Vomiting Following General Anesthesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol is an antipsychotic. At low doses, it is a useful agent for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, its use for treating established PONV has not been well studied. METHODS: This randomized double-blinded trial tested whether haloperidol is noninferior to ondansetron for the early treatment of established PONV in adult patients undergoing general anesthesia. The primary outcome is whether patients were PONV free during the first 4 hours. The noninferiority margin was set at 15%. One hundred twenty patients with PONV received either haloperidol 1 mg intravenously (n = 60) or ondansetron 4 mg intravenously (n = 60). RESULTS: Data from 112 patients (59 in the haloperidol group and 53 in the ondansetron group) were analyzed. Thirty-five patients (52%) in the haloperidol group received 1 or 2 prophylactic antiemetics compared with 42 (79%) in the ondansetron group. Haloperidol was noninferior to ondansetron for the end point of complete response to treatment (defined as the rate of PONV-free patients) for the early (0-4 hour) and the 0- to 24-hour postoperative periods by both the per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses. In the per-protocol analysis, complete responses in the early period were noted in 35 of 59 patients (59%) and 29 of 53 patients (55%) for the haloperidol and ondansetron groups, respectively (difference 5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -13% to 22 %), and in the 0- to 24-hour period in 31 of 59 patients (53%) and 26 of 53 patients (49%) for the haloperidol and ondansetron groups, respectively (difference 4%; 95% CI of the difference: -15% to 21%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, complete responses in the early period were noted in 35 of 60 patients (58%) and 29 of 60 patients (48%) for the haloperidol and ondansetron groups, respectively (difference 10%; 95% CI of difference: -8% to 27%) and in the 0- to 24-hour period in 31 of 60 patients (52%) and 26 of 60 patients (43%) for the haloperidol and ondansetron groups, respectively (difference 8%; 95% CI of the difference: -9% to 25%). All other PONV secondary outcomes were comparable. Twenty-five percent of patients in the haloperidol group were sedated versus 2% in the ondansetron group (P < .001; difference 23%; 95% CI of the difference: 11%-36%). Pain, satisfaction scores, need for analgesics, and changes in QTc intervals were not different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Haloperidol is at worst 13% and 8% less effective than ondansetron by per-protocol analysis and by intention-to-treat analysis, respectively. Thus, it is noninferior to ondansetron for the early treatment of established PONV, but is associated with sedation.