Cervical Spine Movement in a Cadaveric Model of Severe Spinal Instability: A Study Comparing Tracheal Intubation with 4 Different Laryngoscopes.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the Macintosh blade direct laryngoscope, Glidescope, C-Mac d-Blade, and McGrath MAC X-blade video laryngoscopes in 2 cadaveric models with severe cervical spinal instability. We hypothesized that the Glidescope video laryngoscope would allow for intubation with the least amount of cervical spine movement. Our secondary endpoints were glottic visualization and intubation success. METHODS: In total, 2 fresh cadavers underwent maximal surgical destabilization from the craniocervical junction to the cervicothoracic junction by a neurosurgical spine specialist, with subsequent neutral positioning of the heads with surgical head fixation devices. On each cadaver, 8 experienced anesthesiologists performed four intubations with the 4 laryngoscopes in random order. Lateral radiographic measurements determined vertebral displacement during intubation. RESULTS: Cervical spine displacements were not significantly different amongst video laryngoscopes. Cormack-Lehane Grade 1 views were achieved with all attempts with each of the 3 video laryngoscopes; intubation attempts with the Macintosh blade achieved only grade 3 or grade 4 views. Intubation was successful every time with a video laryngoscope but only during 1 of 16 intubation attempts with the Macintosh blade. CONCLUSIONS: In a cadaveric model with maximally destabilized cervical spines, cervical spine movement was observed during attempted laryngoscopy using each of 3 video laryngoscopes, although there was no significant difference between the laryngoscopes. Given cervical spine displacement occurred, these video laryngoscopes do not prevent cervical spine motion during laryngoscopy. However, with improved glottic visualization and intubation success, video laryngoscopes are superior to the Macintosh blade in both cervical spine safety and intubation efficacy in the model studied.

Effect of low-dose droperidol on the QT interval during and after general anesthesia: a placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Since the effects of antiemetic doses of droperidol on the QT interval have not been previously studied, the authors designed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the intraoperative and postoperative effects of small-dose droperidol (0.625 and 1.25 mg intravenous) on the QT interval when used for antiemetic prophylaxis during general anesthesia. METHODS: One hundred twenty outpatients undergoing otolaryngologic procedures with a standardized general anesthetic technique were enrolled in this study. After anesthetic induction and before the surgical incision, 60 patients were given either saline or 0.625 or 1.25 mg intravenous droperidol in a total volume of 2 ml. A standard electrocardiographic lead II was recorded immediately before and every minute after the injection of the study medication during a 10-min observation period. The QTc (QT interval corrected for heart rate) was evaluated from the recorded electrocardiographic strips. In 60 additional patients, a 12-lead electrocardiogram was obtained before and at specific intervals up to 2 h after surgery to assess the effects of droperidol and general anesthesia on the QTc. Any abnormal heartbeats or arrhythmias during the operation or the subsequent 2-h monitoring interval were also noted. RESULTS: Intravenous droperidol, 0.625 and 1.25 mg, prolonged the QT interval by an average of 15 +/- 40 and 22 +/- 41 ms, respectively, at 3-6 min after administration during general anesthesia, but these changes did not differ significantly from that seen with saline (12 +/- 35 ms) (all values mean +/- SD). There were no statistically significant differences among the three study groups in the number of patients with greater than 10% prolongation in QTc (vs. baseline). Although general anesthesia was associated with a 14- to 16-ms prolongation of the QTc interval in the early postoperative period, there was no evidence of droperidol-induced QTc prolongation after surgery. Finally, there were no ectopic heartbeats observed on any of the electrocardiographic rhythm strips or 12-lead recordings during the perioperative period. CONCLUSION: Use of a small dose of droperidol (0.625-1.25 mg intravenous) for antiemetic prophylaxis during general anesthesia was not associated with a statistically significant increase in the QTc interval compared with saline. More importantly, there was no evidence of any droperidol-induced QTc prolongation immediately after surgery.

Costs and effectiveness of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and acetaminophen for preventing pain after ambulatory otolaryngologic surgery.

UNLABELLED: We designed this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to compare the analgesic effect of the cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors rofecoxib and celecoxib with acetaminophen when administered before outpatient otolaryngologic surgery in 240 healthy subjects. Patients were assigned to one of four study groups: Group 1, control (vitamin C 500 mg); Group 2, acetaminophen 2 g; Group 3, celecoxib 200 mg; or Group 4, rofecoxib 50 mg. The first oral dose of the study medication was administered 15-45 min before surgery, and a second dose of the same medication was given on the morning after surgery. Recovery times, side effects, pain scores, and the use of rescue analgesics were recorded. Follow-up evaluations were performed at 24 and 48 h after surgery to assess postdischarge pain, analgesic requirements, nausea, and patient satisfaction with their postoperative pain management and quality of recovery. The need for rescue analgesia and peak pain scores were used as the primary end points for estimating efficacy, and the costs to achieve complete satisfaction with analgesia were used for the cost-efficacy comparisons. Premedication with oral rofecoxib (50 mg) or celecoxib (200 mg) was more effective than placebo in reducing postoperative pain scores and analgesic requirements in the postoperative care unit and after discharge. The analgesic efficacy of oral acetaminophen (2 g) was limited to the postdischarge period. Patient satisfaction with pain management was improved in all three treatment groups compared with placebo but was higher with celecoxib and rofecoxib compared with acetaminophen. Rofecoxib was also more effective than celecoxib in reducing pain and improving patient satisfaction after otolaryngologic surgery. Rofecoxib achieved complete satisfaction with pain control in one additional patient, who would not have otherwise been satisfied, at lower incremental costs to the institution compared with celecoxib. We conclude that rofecoxib 50 mg orally is more cost-effective for reducing postoperative pain and improving patient satisfaction with their postoperative pain management than celecoxib (200 mg) or acetaminophen (2 g) in the ambulatory setting. IMPLICATIONS: Oral premedication with rofecoxib (50 mg) was more effective than celecoxib (200 mg) and acetaminophen (2 g) in reducing postoperative pain and in improving the quality of recovery and patient satisfaction with pain management after outpatient otolaryngologic surgery with only a small increase in cost of care.

Cost-efficacy of rofecoxib versus acetaminophen for preventing pain after ambulatory surgery.

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs are commonly administered as part of a multimodal regimen for pain management in the ambulatory setting. This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study was designed to compare the analgesic effect of oral rofecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, and acetaminophen when administered alone or in combination prior to outpatient otolaryngologic surgery. METHODS: A total of 143 healthy outpatients undergoing elective otolaryngologic surgery were assigned to one of four study groups: group 1 = control (500 mg vitamin C); group 2 = 2 g acetaminophen; group 3 = 50 mg rofecoxib; or group 4 = 2 g acetaminophen and 50 mg rofecoxib. The first oral dose of the study medication was taken 15-45 min before surgery, and a second dose of the same medication was administered on the morning after surgery. Recovery times, side effects, and the need for rescue analgesics were recorded. Follow-up evaluations were performed at 24 and 48 h after surgery to assess postdischarge pain, analgesic requirements, nausea, and patient satisfaction with their postoperative pain management and quality of recovery. Peak pain scores and the need for rescue analgesic medication were used as the endpoints for estimating efficacy of the study drugs, while cost to achieve complete satisfaction with analgesia was used in the cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: Premedication with rofecoxib (50 mg) was significantly more effective than either placebo or acetaminophen (2 g) in reducing the peak postoperative pain, the need for analgesic medication, and improving the quality of recovery and patient satisfaction. Moreover, the addition of acetaminophen failed to improve its analgesic efficacy. An expenditure for rofecoxib of 16.76 US dollars (95% confidence interval, 7.89 to 21.03 US dollars) and 30.24 US dollars (95% confidence interval, 5.25 to 54.20 US dollars) would obtain complete satisfaction with pain control in one additional patient who would not have been satisfied if placebo or acetaminophen, respectively, had been administered prior to surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Rofecoxib, 50 mg administered orally, decreased postoperative pain and the need for analgesic rescue medication after otolaryngologic surgery. The addition of 2 g oral acetaminophen failed to improve its analgesic efficacy.

The efficacy of premedication with celecoxib and acetaminophen in preventing pain after otolaryngologic surgery.

UNLABELLED: Non-opioid analgesics are often used to supplement opioids for the management of perioperative pain. In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, we examined the effects of acetaminophen and a cyclooxygenase type-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, when administered alone or in combination, before elective otolaryngologic surgery in 112 healthy outpatients. Subjects were assigned to 1 of 4 study groups: Group 1, placebo (vitamin C, 500 mg per os [PO]); Group 2, acetaminophen 2000 mg PO; Group 3, celecoxib 200 mg PO; or Group 4, acetaminophen 2000 mg and celecoxib 200 mg PO. All patients received a standardized anesthetic technique. During the postoperative period, pain was assessed using a 10-point verbal rating scale. Recovery times, the need for rescue analgesics, side effects, and patient satisfaction scores were also recorded. The combination of acetaminophen and celecoxib was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing postoperative pain. Celecoxib, when administered alone or in combination with acetaminophen, improved patients' satisfaction with their postoperative analgesia. With the combination of acetaminophen and celecoxib, an additional expenditure of $6.16 would be required to obtain complete satisfaction with postoperative pain management in one additional patient who would not have been completely satisfied if he/she had received the placebo. However, oral celecoxib or acetaminophen alone was not significantly more effective than placebo in reducing postoperative pain when administered before surgery. We conclude that oral premedication with a combination of acetaminophen (2000 mg) and celecoxib (200 mg) was highly effective in decreasing pain and improving patient satisfaction after outpatient surgery. IMPLICATIONS: Oral premedication with a combination of acetaminophen (2000 mg) and celecoxib (200 mg) was effective in decreasing pain and improving patient satisfaction after otolaryngologic surgery. However, acetaminophen (2000 mg) or celecoxib (200 mg) alone was not significantly more effective than placebo in reducing postoperative pain.

Initial evaluation of a new optic laryngoscope blade.

We report on a new optic laryngoscope blade that provides two views of the larynx during tracheal intubation. The availability of an alternative direct view of the larynx may improve the ability of anesthesia providers to observe the tracheal tube passing through the vocal cords when using a Macintosh laryngoscope blade. The optic port improved visualization of passage of the endotracheal tube in obese patients. However, further studies are needed in patients with difficult airways to determine whether this new blade will ease the ability of practitioners to insert a tracheal tube.