Comparisons of surgical conditions of deep and moderate neuromuscular blockade through multiple assessments and the quality of postoperative recovery in upper abdominal laparoscopic surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) on surgical field conditions through multiple assessments during pneumoperitoneum and evaluate the effect of the depth of intraoperative NMB on the quality of postoperative recovery over multiple time periods. DESIGN: Prospective randomized study. SETTING: Operating room of a university hospital. PATIENTS: Eighty non-morbidly obese patients (ASA physical status 1-2) who were scheduled to undergo laparoscopic gastrectomy in the reverse Trendelenburg position. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were allocated to either the deep or moderate NMB group. The depth of NMB was maintained at a post-tetanic count of 1 for deep NMB with a continuous infusion of rocuronium and at a train-of-four count of 1 for moderate NMB with a small intermittent bolus of cisatracurium. MEASUREMENTS: Single-blinded scoring of the quality of the surgical field condition was performed by a surgeon using a five-point scale in a 15-min interval during pneumoperitoneum. The quality of postoperative recovery was assessed using the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale (PostopQRS) on the day before surgery (baseline) and 1 h, 1 day, and 6 days after surgery. MAIN RESULTS: Optimal surgical field condition was rated in 87.0% (449/516) and 72.3% (370/512) of all measurements during deep and moderate NMB, respectively (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients maintaining a good-to-optimal condition throughout pneumoperitoneum was higher in the deep NMB group than in the moderate NMB group. There were no significant differences in the percentage of recovered patients between the two groups for all domains and all timepoints. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple assessments of the surgical field condition demonstrated that deep NMB provided a more satisfactory surgical field condition than moderate NMB during laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, the quality of postoperative recovery, assessed using the PostopQRS, was not different between the two groups according to the depth of NMB.

The effect of triazolam premedication on anxiety, sedation, and amnesia in general anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines have been used preoperatively as part of an anesthesia regimen to attenuate the anxiety of patients. In this study, we aimed to examine the effect of oral triazolam, a short-acting benzodiazepine, on anxiety, sedation, and amnesia. METHODS: Ninety patients, aged 20-55 years, were randomly assigned to receive no premedication, or to receive triazolam 0.25 mg or 0.375 mg 1 h before anesthesia. Anxiety score, sedation score, blood pressure, heart rate and psychomotor performance were measured on the evening before surgery and on the day of surgery. Additional tests of psychomotor performance were performed in the postanesthesia care unit and on the next day of surgery. The occurrence of amnesia, bispectral index (BIS), recovery profiles and patient satisfaction with overall anesthesia care were also evaluated. RESULTS: Changes in the anxiety and sedation scores on the day of surgery were not significantly different among groups, whereas the increases in systolic blood pressure and heart rate were significantly less in both triazolam groups. The triazolam groups both showed a higher incidence of high satisfaction scores (≥ 2). The two triazolam groups also showed similar outcomes, except for a dose-dependent increase in the number of patients with amnesia and BIS values < 90. Delayed recovery from general anesthesia and psychomotor impairment were not observed in the triazolam groups. CONCLUSIONS: Triazolam 0.25 mg or 0.375 mg reduced the hemodynamic changes associated with anxiety, produced potent amnesia, and improved patient satisfaction. We suggest that triazolam can be used effectively as anesthetic premedication in adults.

Impact of time interval between remifentanil and propofol on propofol injection pain.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the most effective time interval between remifentanil and propofol (TimeRP) for the prevention of propofol injection pain in association with remifentanil dosage. DESIGN: Prospective randomized study. SETTING: Operating room of a university hospital. PATIENTS: Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 and 2 patients scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups to receive remifentanil at dosages of 0.25, 0.5, or 0.75 µg/kg over 30 seconds before the injection of 1% propofol 2 mg/kg. TimeRP was defined as the time interval from the initiation of the remifentanil injection to the initiation of the propofol injection. TimeRP for each subsequent patient was determined by the response of the previous patient using an up-and-down sequential allocation method. Injection pain caused by propofol was evaluated using a 4-point scale during the propofol injection. MEASUREMENTS: TimeRP50 was defined as the TimeRP at which propofol injection pain was absent in 50% of patients, and it was estimated using isotonic regression for each dose group. MAIN RESULTS: TimeRP50 was significantly lower in the remifentanil 0.75 µg/kg group (38.6 seconds, 83% confidence interval [CI], 35.6-45.0) than in the 0.5 µg/kg group (65.0 seconds; 83% CI, 52.5-75.0) or the 0.25 µg/kg group (66.6 seconds; 83% CI, 57.1-76.5). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of remifentanil pretreatment for preventing propofol injection pain can be influenced by the time interval between remifentanil and propofol as well as the remifentanil dose.