Comparison between caudal epidural and ultrasound-guided ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric block with bupivacaine and dexmedetomidine for postoperative analgesia following pediatric inguinal hernia surgeries: A prospective randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Caudal epidural and ultrasound-guided ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric nerve (IL/IH) blocks are commonly used regional anesthesia techniques for postoperative analgesia in pediatric inguinal surgeries. Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant has been proven to prolong the duration of both neuraxial and peripheral nerve blocks. We compared the duration of analgesia provided by local anesthetic (LA) and dexmedetomidine for caudal and IL/IH block for pediatric inguinal surgeries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-six children undergoing inguinal hernia repair were selected for this randomized double-blind study. After general anesthesia, children received either 0.75 mL.kg-1 of 0.25% bupivacaine with 1 mcg.kg-1 of dexmedetomidine in caudal epidural or 0.25 mL.kg-1 of 0.25% bupivacaine with 1 mcg.kg-1 of dexmedetomidine in IL/IH block. The pain was assessed up to 24 h postoperatively using face, legs, activity, cry, consolability (FLACC) score. For FLACC ≥4, rescue analgesia was provided using 1 µg/kg of intravenous fentanyl, up to 2 h postoperatively and 10 mg/kg of oral ibuprofen between 2 and 24 postoperative hours. The time for first rescue analgesia was taken as the duration of analgesia. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the pain scores or analgesic utilization between the groups. The duration of analgesia of caudal and IL/IH blocks was similar (720.3 ± 430.1 min and 808.4 ± 453.1 min, respectively). The time taken for the performance of block was significantly higher for caudal compared to IL/IH (547 ± 93 vs. 317 ± 179 s; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both caudal epidural and USG-IL/IH block with dexmedetomidine as additive provide the comparable duration of postoperative analgesia with no significant side effects.

Comparison of the Laryngeal Mask Airways: Laryngeal Mask Airway-classic and Laryngeal Mask Airway-proseal in Children.

INTRODUCTION: In the past 25 years with the development of various supraglottic airway devices, the armamentarium for airway management has increased. In our study, the laryngeal mask airway (LMA)-ProSeal is compared with the LMA-Classic with respect to as follows: (a) Ease of insertion and number of insertion attempts, (b) Device positional stability and possible oropharyngeal leak, (c) Airway trauma, and (d) Hemodynamic changes; in children aged 3-15 years undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia, hypothesizing that these would be different. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty consecutive American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classes I and II children aged 3-15 years and weighing 5-45 kg undergoing elective surgery in the supine position were randomized for airway management with the LMA-Classic or LMA-ProSeal. RESULTS: Size of the LMA used in both LMA-Classic and LMA-ProSeal was 1.5, 2, and 2.5 and was statistically nonsignificant. There was no difference between LMA-Classic and LMA-ProSeal with regard to ease of insertion, number of attempts for insertion, device positional stability, airway trauma and hemodynamic changes. CONCLUSIONS: The complications of usage of the LMA are minimal and similar in both the devices. The LMA-ProSeal has advantages over LMA-classic such as the placement of gastric tube, adequate ventilation, and oxygenation without any gastric distension.

Evaluation of performance of Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway™, Laryngeal Mask Airway-ProSeal and endotracheal tube in prone position: A prospective, randomised study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Airway used in prone position should be efficacious and safe. The Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA™) and Laryngeal Mask Airway-ProSeal (PLMA) provide better airway seal and protection against aspiration. We planned to evaluate the performance of SLIPA™, PLMA and endotracheal tube (ETT) in prone position. METHODS: 114 adult patients undergoing elective surgery in prone position under general anaesthesia were randomised into Group-T (ETT), Group-S (SLIPA™) and Group-P (PLMA). Airways were inserted in supine position and patients turned prone subsequently. Airway characteristics, ventilatory parameters and complications were noted. One-way analysis of variance, Mann-Whitney U-test and Chi-square or Fisher's exact test were used. RESULTS: Tidal volumes, peak airway pressure and compliance were comparable at all times. Leak pressure was significantly higher (P < 0.001) in Group-T (mean leak pressure = 40 cmH2O) when compared to Group-S and Group-P at all the times of recording, and there was no significant difference between Group-S and Group-P. The number of patients requiring airway/neck manipulation in prone position was significantly higher (P < 0.001) in Group-S (19 [55.9%]) when the three groups were compared (none in Group-T) and in comparison with Group-P (5 [14.7%], P < 0.001). On airway removal, the incidence of complications and airway reaction was significantly higher in Group-T. Group-S had a significantly higher incidence of dysphagia at 2 h postoperatively. CONCLUSION: ETT was most efficacious. SLIPA™ and PLMA were efficacious, safe and less stimulating to the airway during removal. More patients required SLIPA™ airway/neck manipulation.

Comparison of sevoflurane concentration for insertion of proseal laryngeal mask airway and tracheal intubation in children (correlation with BIS) / Comparação da concentração de sevoflurano para a inserção de ML proseal e intubação traqueal em crianças (correlação com BIS)

BACKGROUND: Sevoflurane is an inhalational agent of choice in paediatric anaesthesia. For management of airways in children a suitable alternative to ETT is a paediatric proseal laryngeal mask airway (benchmark second generation SAD). Various studies have shown that less sevoflurane concentration is required for LMA insertion in comparison to TI. BIS is a useful monitor of depth of anaesthesia. AIMS: To compare concentration of sevoflurane (end tidal and MAC value) required for proseal laryngeal mask airway insertion and tracheal intubation in correlation with BIS index. METHOD: The prospective randomised single blind study was done in children between 2 and 9 years of ASA I and II and they were randomly allocated to Group P (proseal laryngeal mask airway insertion) and Group TI (tracheal intubation). No sedative premedication was given. Induction was done with 8% sevoflurane and then predetermined concentration was maintained for 10 min. Airway was secured either by proseal laryngeal mask airway or endotracheal tube without using muscle relaxant. End tidal sevoflurane concentration, MAC, BIS, and other vital parameters were monitored every minute till insertion of an airway device. Insertion conditions were observed. Statistical analysis was done by ANOVA and Students t test. RESULTS: Difference between ETLMI (2.49 ± 0.44) and ETTI (2.81 ± 0.65) as well as MACLMI (1.67 ± 0.13) and MACTI (1.77 ± 0.43) was statistically very significant, while BISLMI (49.05 ± 10.76) and BISTI (41.25 ± 3.25) was significant. Insertion conditions were comparable in both the groups. CONCLUSION: We can conclude that in children airway can be secured safely with proseal laryngeal mask airway using less sevoflurane concentration in comparison to tracheal intubation and this was supported by BIS index.

JUSTIFICATIVA: Sevoflurano é um agente inalatório de escolha em anestesia pediátrica. Para o manejo de vias aéreas em crianças, uma opção adequada para o TET é uma MLP pediátrica (referência de segunda geração SAD). Vários estudos mostraram que uma menor concentração do sevoflurano é necessária para a inserção da ML em comparação com a IT. O BIS é um monitor útil da profundidade da anestesia. OBJETIVOS: Comparar a concentração de sevoflurano (valores no fim da expiração e da CAM) necessária para a inserção de MLP e intubação traqueal em correlação com o BIS. MÉTODO: Estudo prospectivo, randômico e cego conduzido com crianças entre 2-9 anos, estado físico ASA I-II, randomicamente alocados nos grupos P (inserção de MLP) e IT (intubação traqueal). Pré-medicação sedativa não foi administrada. A indução foi feita com sevoflurano a 8% e, em seguida, a concentração predeterminada foi mantida durante 10 minutos. A via aérea foi garantida por MLP ou tubo endotraqueal, sem o uso de relaxante muscular. A concentração de sevoflurano no fim da expiração, CAM, BIS e outros parâmetros vitais foram monitorados a cada minuto até a inserção do dispositivo respiratório. As condições de inserção foram observadas. A análise estatística foi feita com o teste t de Student e Anova. RESULTADOS: As diferenças entre TEIML (2,49 ± 0,44) e TEIT (2,81 ± 0,65), bem como CAMIML (1,67 ± 0,13) e CAMIT (1,77 ± 0,43), foram estatisticamente muito significativas; enquanto BISIML (49,05 ± 10,76) e BISIT (41,25 ± 3,25) foram significativos. As condições de inserção foram comparáveis em ambos os grupos. CONCLUSÃO: Podermos concluir que a MLP em comparação com a intubação traqueal pode ser segura para a via aérea de crianças com o uso de menos concentração de sevoflurano, o que foi confirmado pelo BIS.

Comparison of sevoflurane concentration for insertion of proseal laryngeal mask airway and tracheal intubation in children (correlation with BIS).

BACKGROUND: Sevoflurane is an inhalational agent of choice in paediatric anaesthesia. For management of airways in children a suitable alternative to ETT is a paediatric proseal laryngeal mask airway (benchmark second generation SAD). Various studies have shown that less sevoflurane concentration is required for LMA insertion in comparison to TI. BIS is a useful monitor of depth of anaesthesia. AIMS: To compare concentration of sevoflurane (end tidal and MAC value) required for proseal laryngeal mask airway insertion and tracheal intubation in correlation with BIS index. METHOD: The prospective randomised single blind study was done in children between 2 and 9 years of ASA I and II and they were randomly allocated to Group P (proseal laryngeal mask airway insertion) and Group TI (tracheal intubation). No sedative premedication was given. Induction was done with 8% sevoflurane and then predetermined concentration was maintained for 10 min. Airway was secured either by proseal laryngeal mask airway or endotracheal tube without using muscle relaxant. End tidal sevoflurane concentration, MAC, BIS, and other vital parameters were monitored every minute till insertion of an airway device. Insertion conditions were observed. Statistical analysis was done by ANOVA and Students t test. RESULTS: Difference between ETLMI (2.49 ± 0.44) and ETTI (2.81 ± 0.65) as well as MACLMI (1.67 ± 0.13) and MACTI (1.77 ± 0.43) was statistically very significant, while BISLMI (49.05 ± 10.76) and BISTI (41.25 ± 3.25) was significant. Insertion conditions were comparable in both the groups. CONCLUSION: We can conclude that in children airway can be secured safely with proseal laryngeal mask airway using less sevoflurane concentration in comparison to tracheal intubation and this was supported by BIS index.

[Comparison of sevoflurane concentration for insertion of proseal laryngeal mask airway and tracheal intubation in children (correlation with BIS)]. / Comparação da concentração de sevoflurano para a inserção de ML proseal e intubação traqueal em crianças (correlação com BIS).

BACKGROUND: Sevoflurane is an inhalational agent of choice in paediatric anaesthesia. For management of airways in children a suitable alternative to ETT is a paediatric proseal laryngeal mask airway (benchmark second generation SAD). Various studies have shown that less sevoflurane concentration is required for LMA insertion in comparison to TI. BIS is a useful monitor of depth of anaesthesia. AIMS: To compare concentration of sevoflurane (end tidal and MAC value) required for proseal laryngeal mask airway insertion and tracheal intubation in correlation with BIS index. METHOD: The prospective randomised single blind study was done in children between 2 and 9 years of ASA I and II and they were randomly allocated to Group P (proseal laryngeal mask airway insertion) and Group TI (tracheal intubation). No sedative premedication was given. Induction was done with 8% sevoflurane and then predetermined concentration was maintained for 10min. Airway was secured either by proseal laryngeal mask airway or endotracheal tube without using muscle relaxant. End tidal sevoflurane concentration, MAC, BIS, and other vital parameters were monitored every minute till insertion of an airway device. Insertion conditions were observed. Statistical analysis was done by Anova and Student's t test. RESULTS: Difference between ETLMI (2.49±0.44) and ETTI (2.81±0.65) as well as MACLMI (1.67±0.13) and MACTI (1.77±0.43) was statistically very significant, while BISLMI (49.05±10.76) and BISTI (41.25±3.25) was significant. Insertion conditions were comparable in both the groups. CONCLUSION: We can conclude that in children airway can be secured safely with proseal laryngeal mask airway using less sevoflurane concentration in comparison to tracheal intubation and this was supported by BIS index.