Efficacy and safety of general anesthesia with caudal block for inguinal hernioplasty in children: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Caudal block is a type of regional anesthesia suitable for inguinal hernia surgery in children. Our goal was to determine the effectiveness of caudal block combined with general anesthesia in providing intra- and postoperative analgesia and its effect on hemodynamic stability and drug consumption. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective, randomized controlled study included 78 boys, 3-5 years, with an indication for inguinal herniorrhaphy, divided into groups G (general anesthesia, n=39) and G+C (general anesthesia + caudal block, n=39). We monitored hemodynamic parameters intraoperatively, postoperative pain, and total consumption of all medicaments in the perioperative period. The monitoring of complications and side effects of drugs was also carried out. RESULTS: Boys in group G had statistically significantly higher values of heart rate in the 5th minute (p<0.01), in the 25th minute (p<0.01), and after awakening from anesthesia (p<0.01). We obtained similar results with systolic and diastolic pressure values in the 5th minute (p<0.01), 15th minute (p<0.01), 25th minute (p<0.01), before awakening from anesthesia (p<0.01) and after awakening (p<0.01). They also had significantly statistically higher total consumption of propofol, fentanyl, and acetaminophen (p<0.01). Boys in group G+C had significantly lower postoperative pain scores: initially (p<0.01), after 2 hours (p<0.01), and after 5 hours (p<0.01). No complications occurred in this group. CONCLUSIONS: In children, the combination of general anesthesia with caudal block, compared to general anesthesia only, is more efficient in suppressing visceral pain, leading to better hemodynamic stability, and reducing the consumption of medicines in the perioperative period.

Dexmedetomidine vs. propofol sedation reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation after cardiac surgery - a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare the clinical effects of sedation with dexmedetomidine vs. propofol in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and analyze their effects on the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), and total hospital stay. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 120 patients who were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into two groups of 60 patients. The first group was sedated with continuous dexmedetomidine in doses 0.2-0.7 mcg/kg/h. The second group was sedated with propofol in doses 1-2 mg/kg/h. RESULTS: Patients sedated with dexmedetomidine required 2.2 hours less time on MV (p<0.001). There was a positive correlation between the duration of MV and the ICU length of stay (r=0.368; p<0.001), as well as between the duration of MV and the total hospital stay (r=0.204; p=0.025). Delirium occurred in the postoperative period in 25% of patients sedated with propofol, while in the dexmedetomidine group it was only 11.7% (p=0.059). Patients who developed delirium had a significantly longer duration of MV (12.6±5.4 vs. 9.3±2.5 hours, p=0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative sedation with dexmedetomidine, compared to propofol, reduces the duration of MV, but does not influence the length of stay in the ICU and length of hospitalization after open heart surgery.

Effect of different doses of remifentanil on the cardiovascular response after endotracheal intubation: a randomized double-blind study.

OBJECTIVE: Laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation (EI) often provoke a marked sympathetic response, which leads to tachycardia and hypertension. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of different doses of remifentanil on the cardiovascular response to laryngoscopy and EI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 100 patients were included in this randomized study. The participants were divided into four groups of 25 patients each. The patients in the control group did not receive remifentanil. The patients from other three groups received remifentanil prior to induction of anesthesia at doses of 0.5 µg/kg, 1 µg/kg, and 1.5 µg/kg. Hemodynamic parameters were measured before and after administration of remifentanil, after induction of anesthesia and one minute after EI. RESULTS: After administration of remifentanil and induction of anesthesia, a decrease in arterial pressure and heart rate occurred in most patients. After EI, an increase in arterial pressure and heart rate was observed in most patients. The largest increase was recorded in the group of patients who did not receive remifentanil. The best hemodynamic response was observed in patients who received 1 and 1.5 µg/kg of remifentanil. CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil at the doses of 1-1.5 µg/kg is absolutely safe for co-induction of anesthesia with thiopental. Such dosing regimen provides optimal conditions for reducing hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and EI.