ABSTRACT
Background Caudal block is an efficient way to offer perioperative analgesia for painful sub-umbilical interventions. It enables early ambulation and periprocedural hemodynamic stability. These are important advantages over general anesthesia, notably in preterm babies and in children with cardiopulmonary comorbidities. In this study, we aimed to compare the effect of dexmedetomidine and clonidine to accentuate the perioperative analgesia of 0.25% isobaric levobupivacaine in pediatric caudal anesthesia. Methodology A prospective double-blind randomized control study was conducted on 60 patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I, between the ages of one to six undergoing infraumbilical abdominal surgery under caudal anesthesia in the Department of Anaesthesia, Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner. Patients were randomly allocated to the following three groups of 20 each: group L, 1 mL/kg of levobupivacaine 0.25%; group LD, 1 mL/kg of levobupivacaine 0.25% with 0.5 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine; and group LC, 1 mL/kg of levobupivacaine 0.25% with 0.5 µg/kg of clonidine. Intraoperative and postoperative hemodynamic parameters were recorded for 24 hours. Patients' pain scores, sedation scores, and Bromage scores were recorded. In our study, the main observation was the duration of analgesia and the total analgesic requirement for 24 hours. Results There was a significant difference in the duration of analgesia among the three groups (p < 0.001). Group LC had the highest duration of analgesia of 492.00 (50.01) minutes, followed by group LD 486.00 (54.71) minutes, and the lowest in group L 291.00 (40.25) minutes. There was a significant difference between the three groups in terms of the total dose of analgesics in 24 hours (p < 0.001), with the median total dose of analgesics being the highest in Group L. Three groups differed significantly in terms of motor block, which was limited to up to 180 minutes in groups LC and LD with no residual motor block. Conclusions The addition of α2 agonists such as clonidine or dexmedetomidine at a dose of 0.5 µg/kg as an adjuvant to caudal levobupivacaine (0.25%) at 1 mL/kg significantly prolongs the duration of opioid-free analgesia in children undergoing infraumbilical abdominal surgeries without prolonging the motor blockade and any side effects. Moreover, dexmedetomidine does not offer a significant advantage over clonidine regarding the analgesia duration.
ABSTRACT
Background and Aims: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has grappled the entire globe since the beginning of 2020. In India, two vaccines were released in January 2021, the Covaxin® and the Covishield™. However, despite vaccination, many breakthrough infections were reported during the second wave in India. The present cross-sectional study aimed to find out prevalence, severity, and associated risk factors of breakthrough infection among healthcare workers (HCWs) vaccinated against COVID-19. Material and Methods: After ethical approval and CTRI registration, a validated questionnaire was circulated as Google form-based survey to HCWs across the nation through e-mail over 3 weeks. Biweekly reminders were sent to nonresponders till the desired sample size was attained, after which the survey was closed, and responses were charted. Data obtained from the responses were collated and analyzed. Results: A total of 1096 HCWs responded to the survey (54.8% response rate) and 23.36% had breakthrough infection. The severity of infection was more in the 30-50 years age group (P = 0.0170) and doctors belonging to clinical branches (P = 0.0005). The point estimate for effectiveness in preventing infection was significantly better with Covishield™ (78.5% vs. 72.4%) (P = 0.0260). Nearly all those who were infected after vaccination thought that vaccination decreased disease severity. Conclusion: Breakthrough COVID-19 infection still occurred after vaccination though the prevalence of severe infection was low. Covishield™ performed significantly better than Covaxin® in terms of preventing the disease. Clinical branches of medicine were found at a higher risk and younger HCWs or those with comorbidities had a higher severity of the disease.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Direct rigid laryngoscopy and general anaesthesia (GA) are associated with many problems. Regional anaesthesia/airway blocks can be considered as safer and easier alternative techniques especially among old and comorbid patients and conditions with difficult airways as well. The present study was conducted to compare efficacy of regional anaesthesia/airway blocks versus general anaesthesia for diagnostic direct (rigid) laryngoscopy. METHODS: A randomised comparative trial was conducted among patients undergoing diagnostic direct laryngoscopy (DLS) for perilaryngeal lesions. Eighty patients of either sex aged between 20and 80 years and categorised as American Society of Anesthesiologists(ASA) grade I, II, III or IV were divided under two groups of 40 patients each. Group-A underwent DLS with airway blocks and group-B underwent DLS under GA. Haemodynamic parameters and analgesia were interpreted statistically. RESULTS: Difference in haemodynamic stability and quality of post- operative analgesia were primary outcomes. Patients in group-A were observed to be haemodynamically more stable as compared to group-B patients with statistically significant P value (0.003 and 0.016 for pulse rate at 6 min and mean arterial pressure at 4 min, respectively). In postoperative period, group-A patients were found to be more comfortable (lower VAS scores) than group-B patients with P value (0.040, 0.043, 0.044 at 0, 5, 15 min, respectively). CONCLUSION: Regional airway blocks provide better haemodynamic stability and postoperative analgesia than general anaesthesia.
