Ambulatory inguinal herniorrhaphy: paravertebral block versus spinal anesthesia.

AIM: Inguinal herniorrhaphy (IH) is a common surgical procedure that can be successfully performed by using general, regional or local anesthesia and is usually performed in an outpatient setting. In this study, recovery profile, incidence of adverse effects, postoperative pain scores and patient satisfaction between paravertebral block (PVB) and spinal anesthesia (SA) for fast track ambulatory IH were compared. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive either PVB or unilateral SA under standardized protocols (PVB at T9-L1 levels with 5 mL of 0.5 % levobupivacaine for each, unilateral SA at L2-L3 level with 8 mg 0.5% hyperbaric levobupivacaine). All patients were sedated with propofol, 10-70 mg.kg.min. Data on anesthesia, surgery and PACU times, hemodynamic changes, home readiness, pain, and incidence of adverse effects were recorded. RESULTS: One block failed in the PVB group. Anesthesia-related time and onset time were longer in the PVB group, but phase 1 PACU time, time to home-readiness with and without voiding and actual discharge time were significantly shorter in the PVB group. Although the fast-tracking rate was higher in the PVB group, this difference was not significant. The mean propofol dose was higher in the PVB group (52.03+/-19.32 [35-73] mg x kg x min-1) than in the SA group (44.0+/-18.8 [33-70] mg x kg x min-1) (P=0.002). VAS scores at 4, 6 and 12 hours were significantly lower in the PVB group, both at rest and during movement. VAS scores at 30, 60, 120, 180 min and at 18, 24 and 48 hours were comparable in the two groups. Duration of sensory block, onset time of discomfort, time to first analgesic, and time to first rescue analgesic were longer in the PVB group. CONCLUSIONS: In ambulatory IH, PVB provided shorter home readiness time, long lasting postoperative analgesia and improved quality of recovery, and could be a good alternative to SA.

Can remifentanil be a better choice than propofol for colonoscopy during monitored anesthesia care?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This prospective, randomized trial was designed to test the hypothesis that continuous infusion of low-dose remifentanil can provide effective analgesia, sedation, amnesia, patient comfort and stable recovery profile without respiratory depression when compared with propofol infusion during colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred patients were randomly assigned to receive either remifentanil (group R, 0.5 microg/kg followed by 0.05 microg/kg/min, n = 50) or propofol (group P, 0.5 mg/kg followed by 50 microg/kg/min, n = 50). Supplemental doses of remifentanil 12.5 microg in group R and propofol 10 mg in group P were given to treat complaints of moderate to severe pain and discomfort. Hemodynamic and respiratory data, pain, discomfort and sedation scores, patient and gastroenterologist satisfaction and recovery profiles were recorded. RESULTS: The duration of colonoscopy was longer in group P. The mean arterial pressure, heart rate and end-tidal CO2 remained stable during the procedure and were comparable between the groups. After bolus injection of the study drugs, the respiratory rate and oxygen saturation values were lower in group R than in group P. Only one patient in group R required airway support. Pain and discomfort scores were better in group R than in group P. Sedation levels were higher in group P than in group R. Group P needed more supplemental doses than group R. The time to reach an Aldrete score of nine or more was shorter in group R, but discharge times were similar in the two groups. Amnesia was better in group P. Nausea and vomiting were more frequent in group R during the recovery phase. CONCLUSION: Low-dose remifentanil infusion with intermittent bolus injections can provide adequate sedation, amnesia and better analgesia than propofol infusion during colonoscopy. However, remifentanil-induced nausea and vomiting may be a problem during the recovery phase.

Effects of remifentanil and alfentanil on seizure duration, stimulus amplitudes and recovery parameters during ECT.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Propofol may decrease seizure duration in electroconvulsive therapy. Although not proven, prolonged seizures may be more efficacious. The goal of this study was to evaluate and compare effects of alfentanil and remifentanil on seizure duration, recovery parameters and degree of stimulus amplitude in patients undergoing electroconvulsive therapy. METHODS: Twenty-four ASA I-II patients enrolled in this prospective, randomized trial, each receiving a total of seven electroconvulsive therapies. Patients were randomized to receive only Propofol, group P (0.75 mg kg-1, n=8), Propofol with alfentanil, group A (10 microg kg-1 alfentanil+0.5 mg kg-1 Propofol, n=8) and Propofol with remifentanil, group R (1 microg kg-1 remifentanil +0.5 mg kg-1 propofol, n=8) via an iv route. Supplemental doses of propofol were given as required to achieve loss of consciousness. Succinylcholine 0.5 mg kg-1 iv was given to all groups for muscular paralysis. We recorded hemodynamic parameters, cortical and motor seizure durations, and recovery parameters. RESULTS: Mean motor seizure duration was found to be significantly longer in patients receiving propofol-remifentanil anesthesia (53.3+/-13.6 s) and propofol-alfentanil anesthesia (52.2+/-0.4 s) compared with propofol anesthesia (37.6+/-9.2 s) (P=0.001). Recovery parameters and stimulus amplitudes were similar in groups A and R; significantly different from group P (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adding 10 microg kg-1 alfentanil or 1 microg kg-1 remifentanil to reduced doses of propofol provided unconsciousness and increased seizure durations. For patients who need higher stimulus amplitudes for longer seizure durations, combining low-dose propofol with alfentanil or remifentanil may be good alternative regimens for ECT.