Ketamine Versus Tramadol As an Adjunct To PCA Morphine for Postoperative Analgesia After Major Upper Abdominal Surgery: a Prospective, Comparative, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine is commonly used to provide analgesia following major surgery, but is not sufficient as a monotherapy strategy. This study aimed to compare the adjunctive analgesic effect of ketamine versus tramadol on postoperative analgesia provided via PCA-morphine in patients undergoing major upper abdominal surgeries. METHODS: Forty-two patients undergoing elective major upper abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were allocated to receive either ketamine (load dose of 0.5 mg kg-1 followed by a continuous infusion of 0.12 mg kg-1 h-1 up to 48 postoperative hours; ketamine group, n = 21) or tramadol (load dose of 1 mg kg-1 followed by a continuous infusion of 0.2 mg kg-1 h-1 up to 48 postoperative hours; tramadol group, n = 21) in addition to their standard postoperative analgesia with PCA-morphine. Postoperative data included morphine consumption, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and side effects during the first 48 postoperative hours after PCA-morphine initiation. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patient demographic and intraoperative data between the two groups. Tramadol group had significantly less total morphine consumption during the first 48 postoperative hours (28.905 [16.504] vs 54.524 [20.846] mg [p < 0.001]) and presented significantly lower VAS scores at rest and mobilization (p < 0.05) than the ketamine group. No statistical difference was recorded between the two groups (p > 0.05) regarding postoperative cough, sedation, hallucinations, pruritus, urine retention, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. However, patients in the ketamine group reported dry mouth more frequently than patients in the tramadol group (p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative administration of tramadol was superior to ketamine due to significantly reduced opioid consumption and better pain scores in patients receiving PCA-morphine after major upper abdominal surgery.

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia with and without basal infusion using ropivacaine 0.15% and fentanyl 2γ/mL for labor analgesia: a prospective comparative randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is a common practice for labor pain relief. This study aimed to compare two different settings of a PCEA device using the same solution to obtain labor analgesia. METHODS: Fifty-two parturients were randomly allocated to receive ropivacaine 0.15% and fentanyl 2 γ/mL via a PCEA device either as a background infusion of 5 mL/h plus 5 mL demand bolus doses with 10-minute lockout (group B/D, N.=26) or as only demand bolus doses of 5 mL with 10-minute lockout (group D, N.=26). The primary outcome was the total volume of local anesthetic administrated during labor; secondary outcomes included the analgesic efficacy and the effects on maternal and neonatal outcomes. RESULTS: No statistical difference was observed between the groups concerning demographic characteristics, duration of first and second stages of labor, administration of oxytocin and ephedrine, rescue doses, instrumental delivery, Bromage Scale, maternal side effects and satisfaction, neonatal Apgar scores and pH. The total volume of local anesthetic was greater in group B/D compared to group D (P=0.015). A statistically significant difference was detected in VAS scores only at the end of the second stage (P=0.036) and at 60 minutes from the test dose administration (P=0.022) and with group D exhibited higher pain scores than group B/D. The incidence of breakthrough pain (VAS>4) was higher in group D compared with group B/D (P=0.035). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of background infusion plus PCEA demand bolus doses increased local anesthetic consumption and reduced breakthrough pain without affecting maternal satisfaction and neonatal outcomes.

Cost-Effective Surgical Management of Liver Disease Amidst a Financial Crisis.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative use of specialized equipment and disposables contributes to the increasing cost of modern liver surgery. As a response to the recent severe financial crisis in our country we have employed a highly standardized protocol of liver resection that minimizes intraoperative and postoperative costs. Our goal is to evaluate cost-effectiveness of this protocol. STUDY DESIGN: We evaluated retrospectively all patients who underwent open hepatic resections for 4 years. All resections were performed by the same surgical team under selective hepatic vascular exclusion, i.e., occlusion of the hepatoduodenal ligament and the major hepatic veins, occasionally combined with extrahepatic ligation of the ipsilateral portal vein. Sharp parenchymal transection was performed with a scalpel and hemostasis was achieved with sutures without the use of energy devices. In each case we performed a detailed analysis of costs and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: Our cohort included 146 patients (median age 63 years). 113 patients were operated for primary or metastatic malignancies and 33 for benign lesions. Operating time was 121 ± 21 min (mean ± SD), estimated blood loss was 310 ± 159 ml (mean ± SD), and hospital stay was 7 ± 5 days (mean ± SD). Six patients required admission in the ICU postoperatively. 90-day mortality was 2.74 %, and 8.9 % of patients developed grade III/IV postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification). Total in-hospital cost excluding physician fees was 6987.63 ± 3838.51 USD (mean ± SD). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that, under pressing economic conditions, the proposed surgical protocol can significantly lessen the financial burden of liver surgery without compromising patient outcomes.