The effect of spinal anesthesia that is performed in sitting or right lateral position on post-spinal headache and intraocular pressure during elective cesarean section.

Background: Although spinal anesthesia can be applied in different patient positions, the most frequently used positions are sitting and lateral positions. It is known that different patient positions during spinal anesthesia have effects on hemodynamic parameters, postdural puncture headache, and intraocular pressure. Aim: The study aimed to determine the effect of spinal anesthesia performed in either sitting or right lateral position on postspinal headache and intraocular pressure during elective cesarean section. Patients and Methods: The study was a randomized controlled study of 104 eligible pregnant women scheduled to undergo elective cesarean section. The women were randomized into two groups. Spinal anesthesia was performed either in the sitting (Group S, n = 53) or the right lateral position (Group L, n = 51). Heart rate and blood pressure were recorded throughout the operation. The participants were informed and monitored for postspinal headaches. Intraocular pressure before and after the operation was measured with Icare PRO. The obtained data were statistically compared between the two groups. Results: There was no difference between the groups in terms of demographic data. Postdural puncture headache was observed in five patients in Group S and one patient in Group L (P =0.04). There was no difference between the groups in terms of intraocular pressure (P >.05). Heart rate was not significantly different between the groups; however, there was a significant difference in average blood pressure in 1, 5, 30, and 40 minutes (P <.05). The number of trials administered to patients for spinal anesthesia was significantly higher in Group L (P =0.01). Conclusion: Spinal anesthesia performed in the sitting position for cesarean section caused a higher postspinal headache than in the right lateral position, but the position did not affect intraocular pressure.

Comparison of propofol-fentanyl and propofol-ketamine for sedoanalgesia in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy procedures.

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) procedures are performed under sedation in critically ill patients who cannot be fed orally. Aim: We compared the efficacy and safety of propofol-fentanyl and propofol-ketamine for deep sedation in patients undergoing PEG. Retrospective Study. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2018 in Adiyaman University. The patients given propofol-fentanyl (0.5-1.2 mg/kg and 0.2-1 µg/kg, respectively) for sedo-analgesia were designated Group F, and those who received propofol-ketamine (0.2-0.6 mg/kg and 0.5-1 mg/kg, respectively) were placed in Group K. The demographic and hemodynamic characteristics, recovery times, perioperative complications, and need for additional doses were recorded. Results: Seventy-one patients who underwent PEG were analyzed. The age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, comorbidities, duration of anesthesia, and duration of the PEG procedure were similar in the two groups. Recovery time was longer in Group K. The total propofol dose was 64 mg in Group F and 35 mg in Group K. Additional doses of propofol were administered to 12 patients in Group F, compared to none in Group K. The mean blood pressure values were higher in Group K at all-time points. The perioperative complication rate was higher in Group F. Desaturation was observed in 9 (22.5%) patients in Group F and in 3 (9.6%) patients in Group K. Hypotension was observed in 4 (10%) patients in Group F. Conclusion: Propofol-ketamine should be preferred for sedoanalgesia during PEG procedures because of the lower dose of propofol, more stable blood pressure, and greater peripheral oxygen saturation. In addition, we believe ketamine-propofol is safer based on its low complication rate.

Does early use of bilevel positive airway pressure (bipap) in cardiothoracic intensive care unit prevent reintubation?

INTRODUCTION: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is a preferred treatment in acute respiratory failure after operations. Our aim is to investigate the success of early use of bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP) after cardiac or thoracic surgeries to prevent reintubation. METHODS: In a prospective randomized study, 254 patients were divided into two groups depending on the time period between extubation and the application of BIPAP. In Group 1 BIPAP was applied after extubation within 48 hours after surgery following fulfilling of acute respiratory failure criterias whereas, in Group 2, BIPAP was applied one hour after extubation for two episodes of 20 minute duration and 3 hours apart. Arterial blood gas values (pH, PaO2, PaCO2) at first and fourth hour after BIPAP were collected. RESULTS: In comparison between groups, no significant differences were observed for arterial blood gas values of pH and PaCO2 at baseline, one and four hours after BIPAP (p > 0.05) however, the PaO2 values at one and four hours after BIPAP were significantly better in Group 1 in comparison to Group 2 (p < 0.001, p < 0.001; respectively). Reintubation rate was 14 patients (11%) in Group 1 and 7 patients (5.5%) in Group 2 (p = 0.103). CONCLUSIONS: The early and prophylactic use of BIPAP after cardiac or thoracic operations did not provide diminished rates in the postoperative complications such as reintubation.