ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The present study compared the effect of bupivacaine and bupivacaine + sufentanil on hemodynamic parameters and characteristics of spinal anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) under spinal anesthesia. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The study included 40 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients scheduled to undergo TURP. Patients were blindly and randomly divided into two groups. Group B (n = 20) received 10 mg of intrathecal bupivacaine and group BS (n = 20) received 7.5 mg of bupivacaine + 5 µg of sufentanil. Sensory and motor block characteristics, hemodynamic changes, side effects, and time to first analgesic requirement were recorded. No differences in mean arterial pressure or heart rate, time for sensory blockade to reach the T10 level, and maximum sensory level were observed between the two groups. The time to first analgesic request was longer in group BS (P < 0.05). Motor block was significantly higher in group B (P < 0.05). In terms of side effects, no statistically significant differences occurred between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Similar hemodynamic stability and sufficient level of sensory blockade were provided by bupivacaine and bupivacaine + sufentanil used for spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing TUR. Due to the fact that less motor block was observed and the time to first analgesic request was longer, the combination of bupivacaine + sufentanil might be appropriate for patients undergoing TUR.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Spinal/methods , Bupivacaine/administration & dosage , Prostatic Hyperplasia/surgery , Sufentanil/administration & dosage , Transurethral Resection of Prostate/methods , Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Injections, Spinal , Male , Middle Aged , Pain Measurement , Retrospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study investigated the surgical gastrostomy and jejunostomy procedures in cancer patients who needed nutritional support and endoscopy was unattainable. METHODS: Operation time and procedure, anesthesia and tube types, procedure-specific and surgical complications, and tube replacement at the follow up period were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: 109 patients (44 female, 65 male, mean age 50.9 years, range 14-87) were subjected to surgical gastrostomy/ jejunostomy. Ninety-three (85.4%) patients had head-neck and gastrointestinal cancers. In 94 (86.2%) patients endoscopy was impossible due to obstruction of the esophagus and stomach. Gastrostomy/jejunostomy was combined with other surgical procedures in 12 (11 %) patients. Procedure- related complications occurred in 22 (20.7%) patients. Early 30-day mortality occurred in 12 (11 %) cases. The median follow up period was 3.6 months (range 0-18). CONCLUSION: Obstructing cancer, obesity or previous laparotomy make the use of endoscopic techniques impossible. For these patients, surgical gastrostomy/jejunostomy is safe with acceptable complication rates and improves the treatment outcomes with nutritional support.
