A study comparing the effect of premedication with intravenous midazolam or dexmedetomidine on ketamine-fentanyl sedoanalgesia in burn patients: A randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Dressing changes and wound care-debridement procedures often cause fear and anxiety in burn patients, as these processes are quite painful. In order to determine the best method for alleviating pain during these procedures, the current study compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous dexmedetomidine and midazolam for premedication prior to these painful burn care procedures. METHODS: This comparative and randomized study included patients who had a burn size of 1563%, were aged 1870 years, were diagnosed with the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA I-II), and who underwent painful burn care procedures. Patients were intravenously administered either 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine (Group 1) or 0.03 mg/kg midazolam (Group 2) prior to the burn care procedure. Recorded at predetermined time points for each patient were heart rhythm (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), standard bispectral index (BIS), and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS). RESULTS: In the dexmedetomidine group, HR and MAP measurements of patients ​​at the 3rd, 5th, and 10th mins during sedation were significantly lower than the baseline values (p < 0.05). A significant decrease in SpO2 was observed in both groups at the 10th min during sedation, but the decline was higher in the midazolam group (p < 0.05). BIS measurements of the patients in both groups were significantly lower at 10 min. during sedation and at 15th and 60th mins during the procedure (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the group (p > 0.05). The RSS scales of both groups in during the sedation were higher in the 3rd, 5th and 10th mins than the baseline values (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The RSS scales of groups in during the burn procedure were significantly higher at 15 th min than the 0 th values, while the RSS scales of both groups were significantly lower in the 45th and 60th mins (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Results of this study indicate that dexmedetomidine causes hemodynamic alterations while midazolam causes respiratory depression. However, these effects are not severe, and we conclude that both agents are safe and effective to ensure sedation prior to painful burn-care procedures.

The relationship between the level of µ-opioid receptor (µORs) and postoperative analgesic use in patients undergoing septoplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In this study, the µ-Opioid receptor activity was assessed pre-operatively for its association with postoperative pain level and second analgesic requirement in patients undergoing septoplasty. METHODS: In our prospective study, 120 adult patients underwent septoplasty from June 2015 to January 2019 were randomly divided into 2 pre-operative groups. The first group (n = 60) was patients given tramadol (1-2 mg/kg) for post-operative analgesia, and the second group (control group) (n = 60) was initially prescribed only fentanyl (1 µg/ kg-i.v.) in the induction. Acetaminophen with codeine analgesic 325/30 mg (p.o.) was used as an rescue painkiller in the post-operative period. The µ-Opioid receptor activity was investigated in pre-operative blood samples and compared to post-operative pain level and time required for second round of analgesic administration. The visual analogue score (VAS) was used to evaluate the post-operative pain degree (0 no pain; 10 worst pain). The patients' post-operative VAS scores were evaluated upon arrival to recovery room, and at the 1st, 3rd, 7th, 10th, and 24th hour post-operative period. RESULTS: Demographic data and peri-operative variables were similar in both study group (p < 0.05).There was no significant difference between the receptor levels in both groups and the mean receptor level was 200.94 ± 15.34 pg/mL (max:489.92 ± 22.36 pg/mL, min: 94.56 ± 11.23 pg/mL).In patients who used tramadol as the levels of µ-Opioid receptors increased, VAS scores of patients and second analgesic use decreased in post-operative period.The VAS scores in patients with higher receptor levels were lower in the recovery room (p < 0.05), 1st (p < 0.05) and 3rd hours (p < 0.05).The VAS scores were lower in the tramadol group compared to the control group (p < 0.05).Number of secondary analgesic requirement was significantly lower in patients of the tramadol group with higher receptor levels compared to the ones with lower receptor (p < 0.05) for arrival at the recovery room and 1st hour. Patients in the tramadol group needed a second pain killer much later than patients in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that patients with higher µOR levels have a higher efficacy of opioid analgesic agents and an lesser need for additional analgesic agents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered retrospectively (The ACTRN: ACTRN12619001652167 , registration date: 26/11/2019).

Does the removal of spinal implants reduce back pain?

BACKGROUND: The importance of the removal of spinal implants is known in the presence of infection. However, the benefits and/or risks of the removal of spinal implant for the management of back pain are not clear. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we aimed to evaluate the beneficial effects of the removal of spinal implants for back pain. Study included 25 patients with thoracolumbar instrumentation. RESULTS: Seventeen (68%) of them were male. Indications for spinal instrumentation were vertebra fracture (n = 9), iatrogenic instability due to multiple segment laminectomy (n = 12), and instrumentation after recurrent disk herniations (n = 4). Mean visual analog score (VAS) before the removal was 8.08. Mean VAS was 3.36 after the removal. Spinal instruments were removed after the observance of the presence of fusion. All patients were prescribed analgesics and muscle relaxants for 3 weeks before removal. Back pain did not decrease in five (20%) patients in total. Four of them had been instrumented due to recurrent lumbar disk herniation. None of the patients reported the complete relief of pain. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, patients should be cautioned that their back pain might not decrease after a successful removal of their instruments.

Comparison of ropivacaine, bupivacaine, prilocaine, and lidocaine in the management of pain and hemorrhage during nasal pack removal.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates the effects of local anesthetics application on pain and hemorrhage caused by nasal pack removal. METHODS: The study included 140 patients. Of these, 72 were women and 68 were men. The mean age and weight of the patients were 33.67 ± 10.2 years (range, 21-63 years) and 69.6 ± 13.6 kg. The patients were divided randomly into four groups. Three of the four groups received one of the local anesthetics studied in our trial (lidocaine + adrenaline, 0.25% bupivacaine, or 2% prilocaine) before removal of the nasal packing material and the control group received saline solution. Local anesthetics and 0.9% saline solution were applied to Merocel nasal packs 15 minutes before removal. Each patient was given a questionnaire where verbal analog score and amount of postoperative hemorrhage was noted. RESULTS: The mean pain score was 3.5 ± 1.2 (median, 4; range, 3-5) in the lidocaine group, 4.5 ± 1.2 (median, 4; range 3-5) in the prilocaine group, 4.7 ± 1.3 (median, 6; range, 3-5) in the bupivacaine group, and 6.35 ± 1.2 (median, 6; range, 5-7) in the saline group during nasal packing removal. The lidocaine group had significantly better pain scores versus other groups (p < 0.05). Bupivacaine and prilocaine had significantly better pain scores versus the control group, respectively. Analysis of bleeding scores after pack removal showed that all three study groups had significantly better bleeding scores versus the control saline group (p < 0.05). The lidocaine group had significantly less bleeding score than bupivacaine and prilocaine groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Topical lidocaine application before removal of nasal packs in patients who undergo nasal septal surgery can decrease discomfort and bleeding and improve patient tolerance.