A multicenter randomized double-blind comparison of remifentanil and alfentanil during total intravenous anaesthesia for out-patient laparoscopic gynaecological procedures.

We compared Remifentanil, an esterase-metabolized opioid, with Alfentanil as part of the total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and atracurium for out-patient laparoscopic gynaecological procedures in a multicenter randomized, double-blind study. We chose Remifentanil 1 mg./kg.for bolus injection and a continuous infusion of 0.25-0.5 microg./kg./min, compared to Alfentanil 20 microg./kg. For bolus injection and a continuous infusion of 0.5-1 microg./kg./min. Fifty-nine patients received Remifentanil, and sixty-three received Alfentanil. Patients who received Remifetanil experienced significantly fewer stress responses to surgical stimuli (p < 0.05) and required fewer additional boluses of study drugs and propofol (p < 0.05) than Alfentanil during the intraoperative period. Response time to verbal commands, spontaneous respiration, adequate respiration and tracheal extubation, were not significantly different between these two opioids. Remifentanil patients, required more fentanyl for post operative pain control, 40 from 59 cases in the Remifentanil group and 22 from 63 cases in the Alfentanil group (p < 0.05) but still showed significantly better recovery of psychomotor function by Aldrete score of ten at 50 and 60 min (p < 0.05) than Alfentanil patients. The incidence of intraoperative bradycardia was significantly higher with Remifentanil. Other incidences of nausea, emesis, urinary retention and postural hypotension were similar. All patients were ready to be discharged from the hospital within two hours after extubation except for one patient in the Alfentanil group who needed five hours of hospital stay because of urinary retention, nausea and severe emesis.

Comparison of general and regional anesthesia for cesarean section: success rate, blood loss and satisfaction from a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: A prospective randomized trial was organized to compare the effectiveness of general and regional anesthesia for cesarean section (C/S). METHOD: Three hundred and forty-one patients were randomized into the general anesthesia group (GA), epidural anesthesia group (EA) and spinal anesthesia group (SA). The effectiveness of interest was success rate, blood loss and patient satisfaction. RESULT: We found that the success rates of EA and SA were lower than GA. Success in EA should be improved by using an epidural catheter to add more local anesthetic drug instead of a single shot; and the surgeon should allow more time for the block to work adequately. Success in SA should be improved by using bupivacaine instead of lidocaine. GA resulted in significantly more blood loss, lower postoperative hematocrit, and higher proportion of patients who had postoperative hematocrit < 30 per cent than EA and SA. The patients' satisfaction scores were not different among the 3 techniques. This meant that, given adequate explanation and perioperative care, Thai women were satisfied with regional anesthesia. CONCLUSION: Regional anesthesia is a better choice of anesthesia for C/S than general anesthesia. However, the availability of different techniques and ability to change the technique when needed were very useful and important. If GA is chosen, all safety procedures must be followed. Oxygen supplement and endotracheal intubation facilities must be available in all techniques. Guidelines of anesthesia for C/S at a national level should be agreed upon, including the type of personnel, monitoring equipment and postoperative care.