ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Reduction of nasal bone fracture can be performed under general or local anesthesia. The aim of this study was to compare general anesthesia (GA) and monitored anesthetic care (MAC) with dexmedetomidine based on intraoperative vital signs, comfort of patients, surgeons and nurses and the adverse effects after closed reduction of nasal bone fractures. METHODS: Sixty patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II were divided into a GA group (n = 30) or MAC group (n = 30). Standard monitorings were applied. In the GA group, general anesthesia was carried out with propofol-sevoflurane-N2O. In the MAC group, dexmedetomidine and local anesthetics were administered for sedation and analgesia. Intraoperative vital signs, postoperative pain scores by visual analog scale and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Intraoperatively, systolic blood pressures were significantly higher, and heart rates were lower in the MAC group compared to the GA group. There were no differences between the groups in the patient, nurse and surgeon's satisfaction, postoperative pain scores and incidence of PONV. CONCLUSIONS: MAC with dexmedetomidine resulted in comparable satisfaction in the patients, nurses and surgeons compared to general anesthesia. The incidence of postoperative adverse effects and severity of postoperative pain were also similar between the two groups. Therefore, both anesthetic techniques can be used during the reduction of nasal bone fractures based on a patient%s preference and medical condition.
Subject(s)
Humans , Analgesia , Anesthesia, General , Anesthesia, Local , Anesthetics, Local , Dexmedetomidine , Heart Rate , Incidence , Nasal Bone , Pain, Postoperative , Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting , Vital SignsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to examine the usefulness of a combined spinal-epidural set with reinforced catheter (CombiSpeed(R), Ace Medical, Seoul, Korea) as compared with the non-reinforced catheter (PORTEX(R), Smiths medical, Brisbane, Australia) in terms of catheter positioning and clinical aspects of anesthesia. METHODS: One hundred and two patients scheduled for regional anesthesia were enrolled in this study. They were allocated randomly either into group A (CombiSpeed(R)) or group P (PORTEX(R)). Vital signs and the levels of sensory and motor block were measured every 5 minutes. Ease of insertion and the removal of the catheter were assessed, so was the incidence of venous cannulation and paresthesia during epidural catheter insertions. After the placement of epidural catheter, we checked the location of catheter by radiography and measured in a clockwise angle from the midline to catheter tip (angle X). In laboratory, tensile strength of the two products was measured by using tonometry. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups in intra-operative vital sign, block level and ease of catheter insertion and removal. No difference was observed in angle X between the groups (group A: 93.6 +/- 129.5degrees, group P: 124.5 +/- 127.7degrees, P = 0.22). There were no complications such as paresthesia or venous cannulation during catheter insertion. The tensile strength was higher in group A (group A: 1.70 +/- 0.05 kg, group P: 1.30 +/- 0.03 kg, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: CombiSpeed(R) is as useful as PORTEX(R) in terms of ease for catheter placement, positioning of catheter tip and clinical aspects of anesthesia.
Subject(s)
Humans , Anesthesia , Anesthesia, Conduction , Anesthesia, Epidural , Catheterization , Catheters , Incidence , Paresthesia , Tensile Strength , Vital SignsABSTRACT
We found an error in our published article.