RESUMO
The study aimed to assess the pleth variability index (PVI) in patients undergoing lumbar disc herniation surgery under general and spinal anesthesia, exploring its correlation with fluid responsiveness, position, and hemodynamic parameters. Methods: This prospective study included 88 ASA 1-2 patients, aged 18-65, undergoing 1-3 h elective lumbar disc herniation surgery. Patients in groups GA and SA were observed for demographic, operative, and hemodynamic parameters at specified time points. (3) Results: PVI values were comparable between the GA and SA groups. After 250 mL of fluid loading, both groups showed a significant decrease in basal PVI at T2. Prone positions in GA exhibited higher PI values than in SA. The transition from a prone to supine position maintained PVI, while pulse and MAP decreased.; (4) Conclusions: PVI values were comparable in elective lumbar disc herniation surgery with general and spinal anesthesia. Both groups exhibited significant a PVI decrease at T2 after 250 mL of fluid loading, indicating fluid responsiveness. In general anesthesia, the prone position showed a lower MAP and higher PI values compared to spinal anesthesia. PVI and PI, sensitive to general anesthesia changes, could have beneficial additions to standard hemodynamic monitoring in spinal anesthesia management.
RESUMO
Abstract Background and objectives We compared the efficiency of the King Vision video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope, when used by experienced anesthesiologists on adult patients with varying intubating conditions, in a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Methods A total of 388 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II, scheduled for general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Each patient was intubated with both laryngoscopes successively, in a randomized order. Intubation success rate, time to best glottic view, time to intubation, time to ventilation, Cormack-Lehane laryngoscopy grades, and complications related to the laryngoscopy and intubation were analyzed. Results and conclusions First pass intubation success rates were similar for the King Vision and the Macintosh (96.6% vs. 94.3%, respectively, p > 0.05). King Vision resulted in a longer average time to glottic view (95% CI 0.5-1.4 s, p < 0.001), and time to intubation (95% CI 3-4.6 s, p < 0.001). The difference in time to intubation was similar when unsuccessful intubation attempts were excluded (95% CI 2.8-4.4 s, p < 0.001). Based on the modified Mallampati class at the preoperative visit, the King Vision improved the glottic view in significantly more patients (220 patients, 56.7%) compared with the Macintosh (180 patients, 46.4%) (p < 0.001). None of the patients had peripheral oxygen desaturation below 94%. Experienced anesthesiologists may obtain similar rates of first pass intubation success and airway trauma with both laryngoscopes. King Vision requires longer times to visualize the glottis and to intubate the trachea, but does not cause additional desaturation.
Resumo Justificativa e objetivos Comparamos a eficiência do videolaringoscópio King Vision e do laringoscópio Macintosh, quando usados por anestesiologistas experientes em pacientes adultos com diferentes condições de intubação, em um estudo clínico prospectivo randomizado e controlado. Métodos Foram selecionados 388 pacientes com estado físico ASA I ou II (de acordo com a classificação da American Society of Anesthesiologists - ASA), programados para anestesia geral com intubação traqueal. Cada paciente foi intubado com ambos os laringoscópios sucessivamente, em uma ordem aleatória. A taxa de sucesso da intubação, o tempo até a melhor visibilização da glote, o tempo de intubação, o tempo de ventilação, a classificação de Cormack-Lehane (graus) e as complicações relacionadas à laringoscopia e intubação foram analisados. Resultados e conclusões As taxas de sucesso na intubação na primeira tentativa foram similares para o King Vision e o Macintosh (96,6% vs. 94,3%, respectivamente, p > 0,05). As médias dos tempos até a melhor visibilização da glote (IC 95% 0,5-1,4 s, p < 0,001) e de intubação (IC 95% 3-4,6 s, p < 0,001) foram maiores no King Vision. A diferença no tempo de intubação foi semelhante quando as tentativas malsucedidas de intubação foram excluídas (IC 95% 2,8-4,4 s, p < 0,001). Com base na classificação de Mallampati modificada na consulta pré-operatória, o King Vision melhorou significativamente a visibilização da glote em mais pacientes (220 pacientes, 56,7%) em comparação com o Macintosh (180 pacientes, 46,4%) (p < 0,001). Nenhum dos pacientes apresentou dessaturação periférica de oxigênio abaixo de 94%. Os anestesiologistas experientes podem obter taxas semelhantes de sucesso na primeira tentativa de intubação e de traumas das vias aéreas com ambos os laringoscópios. O King Vision requer tempos mais longos até a visibilização da glote e de intubação traqueal, mas não causa dessaturação adicional.
Assuntos
Manuseio das Vias Aéreas/métodos , Intubação Intratraqueal/instrumentação , Anestesia Geral/instrumentação , Laringoscopia/métodos , Cirurgia Vídeoassistida/métodosRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We compared the efficiency of the King Vision video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope, when used by experienced anesthesiologists on adult patients with varying intubating conditions, in a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. METHODS: A total of 388 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II, scheduled for general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Each patient was intubated with both laryngoscopes successively, in a randomized order. Intubation success rate, time to best glottic view, time to intubation, time to ventilation, Cormack-Lehane laryngoscopy grades, and complications related to the laryngoscopy and intubation were analyzed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: First pass intubation success rates were similar for the King Vision and the Macintosh (96.6% vs. 94.3%, respectively, p>0.05). King Vision resulted in a longer average time to glottic view (95% CI 0.5-1.4s, p<0.001), and time to intubation (95% CI 3-4.6s, p<0.001). The difference in time to intubation was similar when unsuccessful intubation attempts were excluded (95% CI 2.8-4.4s, p<0.001). Based on the modified Mallampati class at the preoperative visit, the King Vision improved the glottic view in significantly more patients (220 patients, 56.7%) compared with the Macintosh (180 patients, 46.4%) (p<0.001). None of the patients had peripheral oxygen desaturation below 94%. Experienced anesthesiologists may obtain similar rates of first pass intubation success and airway trauma with both laryngoscopes. King Vision requires longer times to visualize the glottis and to intubate the trachea, but does not cause additional desaturation.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: In this study, effects of pregabaline on postoperative pain and opioid consumption used perioperatively in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy(MRM) were investigated. METHODS: Sixty ASA 1-2 patients scheduled for MRM were included. Patients were randomly divided into two and 30 patients were allocated into each group. Group Pregabaline was given pregabaline 150 mg 1 hr before operation and Group Placebo empty capsule. In both groups, anesthesia induction was obtained by penthotal, fentanyl and rocuronium and maintainence by sevoflurane, N2O and O2. Twelve hr after operation, Group Pregabaline was administered pregabaline 75 mg while Placebo group received empty capsule again. All patients received lornoxicam 8 mg iv 1 hr before end of surgery and ondansetrone 4 mg 30 min before. Patient-controlled analgesia device prepared with morphine was connected to both groups for postoperative analgesia. Postoperative VAS pain scores, hemodynamic parameters, morphine consumption, side-effects like nausea-vomiting, sedation and dizziness were followed and recorded. RESULTS: Demographic parameters were similar. VAS scores were significantly lower in Group Pregabaline at 1, 30 min, 1,4,8 and 12 hr (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative morphine consumption and need for additional dose, although they were higher in Placebo group. The patients in Placebo group had higher bothersome scores for side-effects. Hemodynamic parameters and other side-effects were similar. CONCLUSION: In our study, we showed that pregabalin administered perioperatively increased postoperative analgesic efficacy in MRM operations without making significant side effect, but did not change opioid consumption. We think that further studies about this topic must be held with different dose and patient groups.
