Comparison between stylet and bougie with the C-MAC D-blade in cervical simulated immobility. A prospective randomized controlled trial

Introduction The C-MAC D-blade was designed for difficult airway intubation scenarios. To facilítate easier and faster endotracheal intubation in the laryngoscopy paradox, an introducer is preferred. Hence, we decided to conduct a study to compare the 60° angled C-MAC stylet and the gum elastic bougie as aids to intubation while using the C-MAC D-blade laryngoscope in a simulated difficult airway setting. Objective To compare the ease of oral intubation with the use of the C-MAC stylet (60° angled stylet) versus intubation performed over a bougie inserted using the C-MAC D-blade guidance in patients with simulated restricted cervical mobility. Method Prospective, randomized controlled single-center study. Intubation using the C-MAC D-blade laryngoscope was performed in 48 surgical patients randomly assigned to 2 groups of 24 each: Stylet group, Group S (using 60° angled stylet) and Bougie group, Group B (using bougie) after providing manual in-line stabilization to restrict cervical mobility. The Mann-Whitney U test and the Chi square test were used as applicable. Results The use of stylet resulted in easier (Group S 75% vs. Group B 16.7%) and faster (Group S 26.83 ± 8.61s vs. Group B 47.18 ± 16.46s) intubation with fewer attempts compared to group B. Both groups experienced a similar hemodynamic stress response to intubation. Conclusions The 60° angled C-MAC Stylet is a more effective and time-saving intubation aid with C-MAC D-blade compared to bougie.

Introducción: El videolaringoscopio C-MAC D-blade se diseñó para los casos de intubación de la vía aérea difícil. Para facilitar una intubación más rápida y sencilla en la paradoja de la laringoscopía se prefiere un introductor. Por tanto, decidimos realizar un estudio para comparar el estilete de 60° C-MAC y el bougie elástico de goma como ayudas para la intubación utilizando el laringoscopio C-MAC D-blade en una situación simulada de vía aérea difícil. Objetivo: Comparar la facilidad de intubación oral mediante el uso del estilete del C-MAC (estilete angulado de 60°) con la intubación realizada sobre un bougie insertado con la guía del C-MAC D0-blade en pacientes con restricción simulada de la movilidad cervical. Métodos: Estudio prospectivo, aleatorizado y controlado realizado en un solo centro. Se realizó intubación utilizando el laringoscopio C-MAC D-blade D en 48 pacientes quirúrgicos asignados aleatoriamente a 2 grupos de 24 cada uno: grupo de estilete, grupo S (con el estilete angulado de 60°) y el grupo de bougie o grupo B (con bougie) después de establecer una estabilización manual del eje para restringir la movilidad cervical. Se aplicaron las pruebas U de Mann-Whitney U y de Chi cuadrado según correspondiera. Resultados: Con el estilete fue más fácil (Grupo S 75% vs. Grupo B 16.7%) y más rápida (Grupo S 26.83 ± 8.61s vs. Grupo B 47.18 ± 16.46s) la intubación, requiriéndose un menor número de intentos en comparación con el Grupo B. Los dos grupos experimentaron un estrés hemodinámico similar en respuesta a la intubación. Conclusiones: El estilete angulado de 60° C-MAC es una ayuda más efectiva y ahorra más tiempo con el C-MAC D-blade en comparación con el bougie.

A randomized comparison between interscalene block and dexmedetomidine for arthroscopic shoulder surgery / Una comparación aleatoria entre el bloqueo interescalénico y dexmedetomidina para la cirugía artroscópica de hombro

Abstract Introduction: Management of intraoperative hemodynamics and postoperative analgesia during arthroscopic shoulder surgeries remains a challenge. Although interscalene brachial plexus block (ISB) is considered ideal for shoulder anesthesia it requires skill and proficiency unlike intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine. Objective: This randomized trial was performed to observe the efficacy of dexmedetomidine infusion which is less invasive and demands lesser skills than plexus block. Methodology: All patients scheduled for elective arthroscopic shoulder surgery under general anesthesia were assigned either to group DEX, which received an IV dexmedetomidine bolus of 0.5 mcg/kg over 20 minutes, followed by an infusion of 0.5 mcg/kg/hour that was stopped 30 minutes before surgery the end of surgery or to group BLOCK which received ultrasound guided ISB with 20ml of 0.25% bupivacaine. The primary outcome assessed was intraoperative hemodynamics; the secondary outcomes were immediate postoperative pain, operating condition as assessed by the surgeon, recovery time, and patient satisfaction after 24 hours. Blinded investigator and composite scores were used for the assessment. Results: Both groups displayed equivalent scores for intraoperative hemodynamics whereas ISB resulted in a better post-operative analgesia (p < 0.001). Surgeon's opinion and recovery time were comparable. Overall, the patients had a satisfactory experience with both techniques, according to the quality assessment. Conclusions: IV dexmedetomidine infusion is an effective alternative to ISB for reconstructive shoulder surgeries under general anesthesia.

Resumen Introducción: El manejo hemodinámico intraoperatorio y la analgesia postoperatoria durante la cirugía artroscópica de hombro sigue siendo un desafío. Aun cuando el bloqueo interescalénico del plexo braquial (BIE) se considera ideal para la anestesia del hombro, a diferencia del uso de la dexmedetomidina intravenosa (IV), el BIE requiere destreza y maestría. Objetivo: El presente estudio aleatorizado se llevó a cabo para observar la eficacia de la infusión de dexmedetomidina que es menos invasiva y exige menos destreza que el bloqueo del plexo. Metodología: Todos los pacientes programados para cirugía artroscópica electiva de hombro bajo anestesia general, se asignaron o bien al grupo DEX, para recibir un bolo de dexmedetomidina IV de 0,5 mcg/kg en 20 minutos, seguido de una infusión de 0,5 mcg/kg/hora que se detuvo 30 minutos antes del final de la cirugía; o, al grupo BLOQUEO al cual se le administró un BIE ecoguiado con 20ml debupivacaína 0,25%. El desenlace primario evaluado fue la hemodinamia intraoperatoria; los desenlaces secundarios fueron el dolor postoperatorio inmediato, la condición operatoria evaluada por el cirujano, el tiempo de recuperación y la satisfacción del paciente después de 24 horas. Para la evaluación se utilizaron el investigador ciego y puntajes compuestos. Resultados: Ambos grupos mostraron puntajes equivalentes en la hemodinamia intraoperatoria, en tanto que el BIE dio como resultado una mejor analgesia en el postoperatorio (p < 0.001). La opinión del cirujano y el tiempo de recuperación fueron comparables. En general, la experiencia de los pacientes fue satisfactoria con ambas técnicas, de acuerdo con la evaluación de calidad. Conclusiones: La infusión de dexmedetomidina IV es una alternativa efectiva al BIE para cirugías reconstructivas de hombro bajo anestesia general.

Effect of intrathecal dexmedetomidine versus intravenous dexmedetomidine on subarachnoid anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Alpha-2 agonists such as dexmedetomidine when given intravenously or intrathecally as an adjuvant potentiate subarachnoid anesthesia. We studied the difference in subarachnoid anesthesia when supplemented with either intrathecal or intravenous dexmedetomidine. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-five patients posted for lower limb and infraumbilical procedures were enrolled for a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study and divided into three groups: Group B (n = 25) received intravenous 20 mL 0.9%N aCl over 10 min followed by intrathecal 2.4 mL 0.5%bupivacaine + 0.2 mL sterile water; Group BDexIT (n = 25) received intravenous 20 mL 0.9%N aCl over 10 min followed by intrathecal 2.4 mL 0.5%b upivacaine + 0.2 mL (5 µg) dexmedetomidine; Group BDexIV (n = 25) received intravenous dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg in 20 mL 0.9%N aCl over 10 min followed by intrathecal 2.4 mL 0.5%b upivacaine + 0.2 mL sterile water. Onset and recovery from motor and sensory blockade, and sedation score were recorded. Onset of sensory and motor blockade was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis test, whereas 2-segment regression and recovery was analyzed using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's test to determine difference between the three groups. P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Although onset of sensory and motor block was similar in the three groups, motor recovery (modified Bromage scale 1) and two-segment sensory regression was prolonged in Group BDexIT > Group BDexIV > Group B (P < 0.001). Patients in Group BDexIT and Group BDexIV were sedated but easily arousable. CONCLUSION: Intrathecal dexmedetomidine prolongs the effect of subarachnoid anesthesia with arousable sedation when compared with intravenous dexmedetomidine.

Does prewarming of i-gel improve insertion and ventilation in anaesthetised and paralysed patients? A prospective, randomised, control trial.

CONTEXT: I-gel are supraglottic airway devices with non-inflatable gel-like cuff that is believed to mould to body temperature, to seal the airway. Hence a pre-warmed i-gel may seal faster, provide better ventilation and superior leak pressure. AIMS: To determine if pre-warming i-gel to 40°C improves insertion and efficacy of ventilation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A prospective, randomised, controlled trial was done on 64 patients requiring anaesthesia with muscle relaxation for short duration. For those in group W, i-gel warmed to 40°C for 15 minutes before insertion was used, whereas for those in group C, i-gel kept at room temperature (approximately 23°C) was used. The airway sealing pressure over time, number of attempts and time taken for a successful insertion were noted. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Mean sealing pressure between two groups was compared using independent sample t-test. Repeated Measures ANOVA was used to analyse mean sealing pressure at 0, 15 and 30 min. P value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Sealing pressure improves over time in both the groups but the mean sealing pressure was higher in group C when compared to group W at all points of time, however this was clinically and statistically insignificant. Ease of insertion, time for successful insertion, insertion attempts, intra-operative manoeuvres were all comparable between the groups with no adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-warming of i-gel to 40°C does not improve the success rate of insertion or provide a higher sealing pressure in anaesthetised and paralysed patients when compared to i-gel at room temperature.