General anaesthesia or spinal anaesthesia for outpatient urological surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A variety of drugs and techniques have been introduced into ambulatory anaesthesia. The technique as well as the drugs used may hasten or delay home discharge. We compared recovery profiles and side-effects of spinal anaesthesia and total intravenous anaesthesia. METHODS: Forty unpremedicated ASA I-II patients (18-65 yr) undergoing varicocele repair were randomly divided into two groups. Spinal anaesthesia (26-G atraumatic needle) with hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% 5 mg and fentanyl 25 microg were given to patients in Group Spinal (n = 20). Patients in Group TIVA (n = 20) received total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and remifentanil given by continuous infusion; a laryngeal mask was used to secure the airway. The duration of surgery, time to home readiness and side-effects were recorded. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable with respect to patients' characteristics and duration of surgery. The times to achieve ambulation were similar between groups (Spinal = 78.4 +/- 40.9 min, TIVA = 75.9 +/- 13.8 min). Urinary voiding was a requirement for discharge after spinal anaesthesia and the time for home readiness was longer in Group Spinal (158.0 +/- 40.2 versus 94.9 +/- 18.8 min) (P < 0.05). Two patients reported pruritus and one reported postdural puncture headache in Group Spinal, whereas two patients reported nausea in Group TIVA. Patients in Group TIVA had a greater need for analgesia postoperation (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In healthy unpremedicated men undergoing minor urological operations, total intravenous anaesthesia with remifentanil and propofol provided as safe and effective anaesthesia as spinal block with the advantage of earlier home readiness.

Tracheal intubation without muscle relaxants: remifentanil or alfentanil in combination with propofol.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In some situations, the use of muscle relaxants (neuromuscular blocking drugs) are undesirable or contraindicated. We compared intubating conditions without muscle relaxants in premedicated patients receiving either alfentanil 40 microg kg(-1) or remifentanil 2, 3 or 4 microg kg(-1) followed by propofol 2 mg kg(-1). METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind study, 80 healthy patients were assigned to one of four groups (n = 20). After intravenous atropine, alfentanil 40 microg kg(-1) or remifentanil 2, 3 or 4 microg kg(-1) were injected over 90 s followed by propofol 2 mg kg(-1). Ninety seconds after administration of the propofol, laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation were attempted. Intubating conditions were assessed as excellent, good or poor on the basis of ease of lung ventilation, jaw relaxation, laryngoscopy, position of the vocal cords, and patient response to intubation and slow inflation of the endotracheal tube cuff. RESULTS: Seven patients who received remifentanil 2 microg kg(-1) and one patient who received remifentanil 3 microg kg(-1) could not be intubated at the first attempts. Excellent intubating conditions (jaw relaxed, vocal cords open and no movement in response to tracheal intubation and cuff inflation) were observed in those who received either alfentanil 40 microg kg(-1) (45% of patients) or remifentanil in doses of 2 microg kg(-1) (20%), 3 microg kg(-1) (75%) or 4 microg kg(-1) (95%). Overall, intubating conditions were significantly better (P < 0.05), and the number of patients showing excellent conditions were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in patients who received remifentanil 4 microg kg(-1) compared with those who received alfentanil 40 microg kg(-1) or remifentanil 2 microg kg(-1). No patient needed treatment for hypotension or bradycardia. CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil 4 microg kg(-1) and propofol 2 mg kg(-1) administered in sequence intravenously provided good or excellent conditions for tracheal intubation in all patients without the use of muscle relaxants.

Remifentanil versus alfentanil in total intravenous anaesthesia for day case surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We assessed the intraoperative haemodynamic responses and recovery profiles of total intravenous anaesthesia with remifentanil and alfentanil for outpatient surgery. METHODS: Patients in Group 1 (n = 20) received alfentanil 20 microg kg(-1) followed by 2 microg kg(-1) min(-1) intravenously; patients in Group 2 (n = 20) received remifentanil 1 microg kg(-1) followed by 0.5 microg kg(-1) min(-1) intravenously. Both groups then received propofol 2 mg kg(-1) followed by 9 mg kg(-1) h(-1) intravenously. Five minutes after skin incision, infusion rates were decreased, and at the end of surgery, all infusions were discontinued. Early recovery was assessed by the Aldrete score, whereas intermediate recovery was assessed with the postanaesthetic discharge scoring system (PADS). RESULTS: Perioperative arterial pressure was similar in both groups; heart rate was lower in Group 2 (P < 0.05). The times to spontaneous and adequate respiration, response to verbal commands, extubation and times for Aldrete score > or = 9 were shorter in Group 2 patients (P < 0.05). Pain scores were higher in Group 2 patients (P < 0.05). Overall times for postanaesthetic discharge scores > or = 9 were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Early recovery of patients after day surgery is significantly shorter after total intravenous anaesthesia with remifentanil compared with that with alfentanil but postoperative pain management must be planned ahead.

Patient-controlled sedation and analgesia during SWL.

Sixty unpremedicated outpatients undergoing elective extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) using a Dornier MPL 9000 lithotripter were randomly assigned to receive either propofol-alfentanil (PA group; N = 30) or midazolam-alfentanil (MA group; N = 30) by a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device for sedation and analgesia. Although pain intensity scores were lower after 20 minutes and sedation was more pronounced in the MA group, both drug regimens produced satisfactory sedation and analgesia and allowed the maximum number of shockwaves to be given. Alfentanil consumption was less in the MA group (P < 0.05). Both groups were hemodynamically stable. The patients in the MA group had slower ventilation rates, lower oxygen saturation, and higher end-tidal carbon dioxide levels. Use of MA was associated with more episodes of oxygen desaturation to < 90% (30% vs. 11%; P < 0.05). One patient in the PA group and three patients in the MA group developed bradypnea (< 10 breaths/min). Patient satisfaction was very high with the two sedative-analgesic techniques. Propofol and midazolam, when given in combination with alfentanil using a PCA pump, may provide safe, effective analgesia and sedation during lithotripsy. Patient-controlled sedation and analgesia may provide optimal conditions for SWL of urinary tract stones and is a useful alternative to other forms of anesthesia and analgesia.