The effects of dexmedetomidine and tramadol on post-operative pain and agitation, and extubation quality in paediatric patients undergoing adenotonsillectomy surgery: A randomized trial.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Adenotonsillectomies are common surgical procedures performed under general anaesthesia in childhood. Post-operative pain and agitation are complications associated with this procedure. We compared the effects of dexmedetomidine and tramadol on post-operative pain, agitation, haemodynamic parameters, and extubation quality in patients undergoing an adenotonsillectomy using sevoflurane as an anaesthetic agent. METHODS: Sixty paediatric patients who had undergone an adenotonsillectomy were included in this study. The patients were randomized into two groups that received either dexmedetomidine (n = 30) or tramadol (n = 30). Haemodynamic variables, extubation time, post-operative pain, agitation and adverse events were recorded for all patients. Post-operative pain was assessed with the pain point system scale (PPSS), and agitation was assessed using the Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS). RESULTS: Patients in the dexmedetomidine group had significantly lower heart rates than the tramadol group. In addition, patients in the dexmedetomidine group had significantly lower post-operative PPSS and Riker SAS scores than patients in the tramadol group. Not breathing, cough-bucking and desaturation after extubation occurred less frequently in patients who received dexmedetomidine than in patients who received tramadol. However, the time to extubation was significantly longer for patients who received dexmedetomidine. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that dexmedetomidine was more effective than tramadol for mitigating post-operative pain and agitation in paediatric patients following an adenotonsillectomy with sevoflurane. Although dexmedetomidine was associated with a longer time to extubation, it was also associated with fewer complications following extubation compared with tramadol.

Comparison of sedation with dexmedetomidine vs propofol during hysteroscopic surgery: Single-centre randomized controlled trial.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The most appropriate sedative agent for conscious sedation in minor hysteroscopic surgeries is still unclear. Dexmedetomidine a sedative and analgesic agent, may be appropriate for outpatient procedures. The aim of our study was to compare the sedative, analgesic and hemodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine vs propofol in combination with fentanyl and midazolam in patients undergoing minor hysteroscopy surgery. METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing minor hysteroscopic surgery were randomized to receive either dexmedetomidine (n = 30) or propofol (n = 30) groups. Dexmedetomidine was infused at 1 µg/kg for 10 minutes followed by a 0.7 µg/kg/h maintenance infusion. Propofol was infused a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg followed by a 2.5 mg/kg/h maintenance infusion. Fentanyl 1.5 mcg/kg and midazolam 0.03 mg/kg were performed to all patients as premedication therapy before the hysteroscopic surgery. Post-operative pain score was assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS). Hemodynamic variables and Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) scores were recorded for all patients. RESULTS: Mean arterial pressure and heart rate in the dexmedetomidine group were significantly lower than in propofol group, whereas SpO2 was similar between two groups. In addition, post-operative Riker SAS and VAS scores were significantly lower in dexmedetomidine group than in the propofol group. Bradycardia, hypotension and serious adverse events did not occur in any patients. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine was associated with better analgesia and lower post-operative pain score than propofol in patients undergoing hysteroscopic surgery. However, arterial pressure and heart rate should be more closely monitored in patients received dexmedetomidine.

Epidural anesthesia for pilonidal sinus surgery: ropivacaine versus levobupivacaine.

BACKGROUND: Epidural anesthesia is one of the best options for lower abdominal and lower limb surgery. However, there have been insufficient reports regarding the use of epidural anesthesia for pilonidal sinus surgery. The present study was performed to compare the clinical profiles of epidural block performed with 0.75% levobupivacaine and 0.75% ropivacaine in this procedure. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing pilonidal sinus surgery were randomly allocated into two groups: one group received levobupivacaine and the other received ropivacaine at 0.75% in a volume of 10 ml. Arterial blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, the onset time of analgesia and duration of block, highest sensory block level, perioperative and postoperative side effects, and patients' and surgeons' satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: Hemodynamic stability was maintained in both groups throughout surgery. The onset time of analgesia (the time from epidural injection of local anesthetic to reach L2 sensorial block) was 6.26 ± 3.49 min in the levobupivacaine group and 4.06 ± 1.75 min in the ropivacaine group (P = 0.116). The duration of sensorial block (time for regression of sensory block to L2) was 297.73 ± 70.94 min in group L and 332.40 ± 102.22 min in group R (P = 0.110). Motor block was not seen in any of the patients in the study groups. Patients' and surgeons' satisfaction with the anesthetic technique were mostly excellent in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing pilonidal sinus surgery, both levobupivacaine and ropivacaine produce rapid and excellent epidural block without leading to motor block or significant side effects. Although not statistically significant, the onset time of anesthesia was shorter and the duration of effect was longer with ropivacaine than with levobupivacaine in this study.

Comparison of recovery profiles of propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia with bispectral index monitoring in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the comparative effects of propofol infusion versus sevoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia with respect to hemodynamics, recovery characteristics, nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy. METHODS: Forty American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II patients, aged between 22 and 65 years were randomly divided to receive either intravenous anesthesia with propofol (group P) or sevoflurane (group S). Cardiovascular variables, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2), bispectral index (BIS) and train-of-four (TOF) values were recorded at intervals throughout the procedure. Time to spontaneous respiration, eye opening, extubation, obey commands, hand squeezing, Aldrete Score > 9 and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were recorded. RESULTS: Early recovery times [spontaneous respiration (P = 0.002), eye opening (P = 0.006), extubation (P = 0.013), obey commands (P < 0.05), hand squeezing (P = 0.005)] were significantly longer in group P. The incidence of vomiting was significantly higher in group S (P < 0.05). Hemodynamic parameters, levels of SpO2, ETCO2, and BIS and TOF values were not significantly different between the groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The present study which adjusted sevoflurane concentration and propofol infusion rate according to BIS values revealed that maintenance of anesthesia with sevoflurane is associated with faster recovery than anesthesia with propofol. Propofol resulted in a significantly lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Hemodynamic parameters and levels of SpO2 and ETCO2 were comparable between the groups during percutaneous nephrolithotomy.