Transition in eye gaze as a predictor of emergence from general anesthesia in children and adults: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: It is useful to monitor eye movements during general anesthesia, but few studies have examined neurological finding of the eyes during emergence from general anesthesia maintained with short-acting opioids and volatile anesthetics. METHODS: Thirty children aged 1-6 years and 30 adults aged 20-79 years were enrolled. Patients received general anesthesia maintained with sevoflurane and remifentanil. The timing of three physical-behavioral responses-eye-gaze transition (the cycle from conjugate to disconjugate and back to conjugate), resumption of somatic movement (limbs or body), and resumption of respiration-were recorded until spontaneous awakening. The primary outcome measure was the timing of the physical-behavioral responses. Secondary outcome measures were the incidence of eye-gaze transition, and the bispectral index, concentration of end-tidal sevoflurane, and heart rate at the timing of eye-gaze transition. RESULTS: Eye-gaze transition was evident in 29 children (96.7%; 95% confidence interval, 82.8-99.9). After the end of surgery, eye-gaze transition was observed significantly earlier than resumption of somatic movement or respiration (472 [standard deviation 219] s, 723 [235] s, and 754 [232] s, respectively; p < 0.001). In adults, 3 cases (10%; 95% CI, 0.2-26.5) showed eye-gaze transition during emergence from anesthesia. The incidence of eye-gaze transition was significantly lower in adults than in children (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In children, eye-gaze transition was observed significantly earlier than other physical-behavioral responses during emergence from general anesthesia and seemed to reflect emergence from anesthesia. In contrast, observation of eye gaze was not a useful indicator of emergence from anesthesia in adults.

Effects of a novel method of anesthesia combining propofol and volatile anesthesia on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery / Efeitos de um novo método de anestesia combinando propofol e anestesia volátil sobre a incidência de náusea e vômito no pós-operatório em pacientes submetidas à laparoscopia ginecológica

BACKGROUND: We investigated the effects of a novel method of anesthesia combining propofol and volatile anesthesia on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery. METHODS: Patients were randomly divided into three groups: those maintained with sevoflurane (Group S, n = 42), propofol (Group P, n = 42), or combined propofol and sevoflurane (Group PS, n = 42). We assessed complete response (no postoperative nausea and vomiting and no rescue antiemetic use), incidence of nausea and vomiting, nausea severity score, vomiting frequency, rescue antiemetic use, and postoperative pain at 2 and 24 h after surgery. RESULTS: The number of patients who exhibited a complete response was greater in Groups P and PS than in Group S at 0-2 h (74%, 76% and 43%, respectively, p = 0.001) and 0-24 h (71%, 76% and 38%, respectively, p < 0.0005). The incidence of nausea at 0-2 h (Group S = 57%, Group P = 26% and Group PS = 21%, p = 0.001) and 0-24 h (Group S = 62%, Group P = 29% and Group PS = 21%, p < 0.0005) was also significantly different among groups. However, there were no significant differences among groups in the incidence or frequency of vomiting or rescue antiemetic use at 0-24 h. CONCLUSION: Combined propofol and volatile anesthesia during laparoscopic gynecological surgery effectively decreases the incidence of postoperative nausea. We term this novel method of anesthesia "combined intravenous-volatile anesthesia (CIVA)".

JUSTIFICATIVA: Investigamos os efeitos de um novo método de anestesia, que combina propofol e anestesia volátil, sobre a incidência de náusea e vômito no período pós-operatório de pacientes submetidas à laparoscopia ginecológica. MÉTODOS: As pacientes foram randomicamente divididas em três grupos: manutenção com sevoflurano (Grupo S, n = 42), com propofol (Grupo P, n = 42) ou com a combinação de propofol e sevoflurano (Grupo PS, n = 42). Avaliamos as respostas completas (sem náusea e vômito no pós-operatório e sem uso de antiemético de resgate), incidência de náusea e vômito, escore de gravidade da náusea, frequência de vômitos, uso de antiemético de resgate e dor no pós-operatório em duas e 24 horas após a cirurgia. RESULTADOS: O número de doentes que apresentou uma resposta completa foi maior nos grupos P e PS do que no Grupo S em 0-duas horas (74%, 76% e 43%m respectivamente, p = 0,001) e 0-24 horas (71%, 76% e 38%, respectivamente, p < 0,0005). A incidência de náusea em 0-duas horas (Grupo S = 57%, Grupo P = 26% e Grupo PS = 21%, p = 0,001) e 0-24 horas (Grupo S = 62%; Grupo P = 29% e grupo PS = 21%, p < 0,0005) também foi significativamente diferente entre os grupos. Porém, não houve diferença significativa entre os grupos em relação à incidência ou frequência de vômitos ou uso de antiemético de resgate em 0-24 horas. CONCLUSÃO: A combinação de propofol e anestesia volátil durante a laparoscopia ginecológica efetivamente diminui a incidência de náusea no pós-operatório.

Effects of a novel method of anesthesia combining propofol and volatile anesthesia on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the effects of a novel method of anesthesia combining propofol and volatile anesthesia on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery. METHODS: Patients were randomly divided into three groups: those maintained with sevoflurane (Group S, n=42), propofol (Group P, n=42), or combined propofol and sevoflurane (Group PS, n=42). We assessed complete response (no postoperative nausea and vomiting and no rescue antiemetic use), incidence of nausea and vomiting, nausea severity score, vomiting frequency, rescue antiemetic use, and postoperative pain at 2 and 24h after surgery. RESULTS: The number of patients who exhibited a complete response was greater in Groups P and PS than in Group S at 0-2h (74%, 76% and 43%, respectively, p=0.001) and 0-24h (71%, 76% and 38%, respectively, p<0.0005). The incidence of nausea at 0-2h (Group S=57%, Group P=26% and Group PS=21%, p=0.001) and 0-24h (Group S=62%, Group P=29% and Group PS=21%, p<0.0005) was also significantly different among groups. However, there were no significant differences among groups in the incidence or frequency of vomiting or rescue antiemetic use at 0-24h. CONCLUSION: Combined propofol and volatile anesthesia during laparoscopic gynecological surgery effectively decreases the incidence of postoperative nausea. We term this novel method of anesthesia "combined intravenous-volatile anesthesia (CIVA)".

[Effects of a novel method of anesthesia combining propofol and volatile anesthesia on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery]. / Efeitos de um novo método de anestesia combinando propofol e anestesia volátil sobre a incidência de náusea e vômito no pós-operatório em pacientes submetidas à laparoscopia ginecológica.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the effects of a novel method of anesthesia combining propofol and volatile anesthesia on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery. METHODS: Patients were randomly divided into three groups: those maintained with sevoflurane (Group S; n = 42), propofol (Group P; n = 42), or combined propofol and sevoflurane (Group PS; n = 42). We assessed complete response (no postoperative nausea and vomiting and no rescue antiemetic use), incidence of nausea and vomiting, nausea severity score, vomiting frequency, rescue antiemetic use, and postoperative pain at 2 and 24h after surgery. RESULTS: The number of patients who exhibited a complete response was greater in Groups P and PS than in Group S at 0-2h (74%; 76% and 43%; respectively, p = 0.001) and 0-24h (71%; 76%, and 38%; respectively, p < 0.0005). The incidence of nausea at 0-2h (Group S = 57%; Group P = 26% and Group PS = 21%; p = 0.001) and 0-24h (Group S = 62%; Group P = 29% and Group PS = 21%; p < 0.0005) was also significantly different among groups. However, there were no significant differences among groups in the incidence or frequency of vomiting or rescue antiemetic use at 0-24h. CONCLUSION: Combined propofol and volatile anesthesia during laparoscopic gynecological surgery effectively decreases the incidence of postoperative nausea.

[Comparative study of sublingual midazolam with oral midazolam for premedication in pediatric anesthesia].

BACKGROUND: We studied the efficacy of sublingual midazolam compared with oral midazolam for predmedication in children. METHODS: Forty-two children (9 months-11 years of age) for minor elective surgery were divided into 2 groups; one group treated with sublingual midazolam at 30 minutes before the entrance into operating room, and the other group receiving oral midazolam at 30 minutes before entering operating room. The group treated with sublingual midazolam at 30 minutes received sublingual midazolam 0.2 mg x kg(-1), while the other group received oral midazolam 0.5 mg x kg(-1) with syrup. We evaluated the taste acceptability, the effect of sedation, the anxiolysis and the cooperation for mask acceptance by using scales. RESULTS: Twenty children accepted sublingual midazolam, and twenty-one accepted oral midazolam. It was effective and satisfactory in taste acceptability, sedation, anxiolysis and cooperation in both groups. There was no difference between the two groups. Any respiratory depression and delayed recovery were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: Sublingual midazolam 0.2 mg x kg(-1) is useful for premedication in pediatric anesthesia, and it equals with oral midazolam 0.5 mg x kg(-1) in efficacy.