Sacrococcygeal Local Anesthesia for Complicated Versus Uncomplicated Pilonidal Sinus Surgery: A Single Center Study.

BACKGROUND: Several anesthetic techniques have been used for pilonidal sinus surgery such as general, spinal, and local anesthesia infiltration. However, the most effective technique remains controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of sacrococcygeal local anesthesia for complicated pilonidal cysts in terms of postoperative analgesic consumption. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted by collecting data from medical records for male patients who underwent pilonidal surgery using sacrococcygeal local anesthesia from 2008 to 2018. Patients' demographics, operative data, and postoperative outcomes such as pain, nausea, as well as analgesic consumption at 0 and 3 hours were analyzed. Pain scores at rest and upon pressure were recorded using the Visual Analogue Scale. The length of complicated pilonidal sinus was considered to be greater than or equal to 7 cm with multiple openings. RESULTS: A total of 394 patients were included in the study, 173 patients (43.9%) had complicated cysts while 221 patients (56.1%) had uncomplicated cysts. The majority of patients were males (85.5% vs. 76.9% in the complicated and uncomplicated groups respectively). Patients' weight was significantly higher in the complicated cyst group (87.12 ± 17.07 vs. 82.43 ± 20.30 kg, P value = 0.02). Around 41% of the patients in the complicated group were obese (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m^2) compared to 32.0% of the patients in the uncomplicated group. Mean arterial pressure and heart rate at baseline, intraoperatively and at the end of the operation were similar between the two groups. Pain scores at rest and upon pressure were low in both groups. Analgesic consumption was similar between the two groups. Eight patients (4.6%) in the complicated group required acetaminophen at 0 hour compared to 6 patients (2.7%) in the uncomplicated group. Three patients (1.7%) received ketoprofen at 0 hour in the complicated group and 3 patients (1.4%) in the other group. Three patients, 2 (1.2%) in the complicated group and 1 (0.5%) in the second group required tramadol hydrochloride. CONCLUSIONS: Sacrococcygeal local anesthetic technique for complex pilonidal sinus surgery provided intra-operative hemodynamic stability as well as low post-operative pain and analgesic consumption.

Comparison of clinical effects of meperidine and sufentanil added to 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the effect of adding meperidine or sufentanil to hyperbaric bupivacaine in patients undergoing elective cesarean delivery (CD) under spinal anesthesia. The primary outcome was the first analgesic request time, and secondary outcomes included an analgesic requirement in the first 24 h and intraoperative and postoperative side effects. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind clinical trial in which patients were allocated into two groups. One group received preservative-free meperidine 12.5 mg (1 mL) in addition to 0.5% 10 mg (2 mL) of hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia. The other group received sufentanil 5 µg (1 mL) added to 0.5% 10 mg (2 mL) of hyperbaric bupivacaine. RESULTS: A total of 60 parturients were included in the study, 30 patients in each group. Time to first analgesic request was significantly longer in the meperidine group (400.0 ± 142.1 min) compared to (274.0 ± 104.1 min) in the sufentanil group (P < 0.0001). Around 73% of the parturients in the sufentanil group required analgesics at 4 h compared to 13% in the meperidine group (P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in postoperative pruritus, nausea and vomiting, in addition to shivering. As for surgeon satisfaction, 56.7% reported excellent abdominal muscle relaxation during the surgery in the meperidine group compared to 10% in the sufentanil group (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Meperidine was superior to sufentanil in terms of improved analgesia, intraoperative postoperative pruritus, and shivering, as well as increased surgeon satisfaction in women undergoing spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER AND REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04446715).

Ondansetron versus ondansetron with dexamethasone to prevent intrathecal-morphine pruritus for caesarean patients: randomised double-blind trial.

The objective of this randomised, double blinded clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic administration of 4 mg ondansetron as monotherapy versus combination therapy of 4 mg ondansetron plus 8 mg dexamethasone for the prevention of intrathecal morphine-associated pruritus in caesarean section within 24 h. A total of 194 patients were included, 96 patients in the monotherapy group and 98 in the combination group. One hour after the operation, 11.5% of patients in ondansetron group had failure of prophylaxis for pruritus compared to 13.5% of patients in the combination group (p = .66). This decreased throughout the follow-up to reach 0.0% and 1.0% at 24 h in the ondansetron vs. the combination groups respectively. There was no superiority of combining ondansetron with dexamethasone over the use of ondansetron as prophylactic antipruritic in parturients receiving intrathecal morphine for caesarean section.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? The incidence of pruritus has been reported to be between 36% and 60% in patients undergoing caesarean section with intrathecal morphine. Ondansetron has been identified as possible antipruritic agent while the antipruritic effect of dexamethasone is inconclusive.What do the results of this study add? The study demonstrated that there was no superiority of combining ondansetron with dexamethasone over the use of ondansetron as prophylactic antipruritic in parturients receiving intrathecal morphine for caesarean section. Moreover, it seems that there is no effect of combining ondansetron with dexamethasone over ondansetron alone on antiemetic consequences.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Ondansetron could be an effective antipruritic if used solely for patients undergoing caesarean section.

Repetitive nerve block for neuropathic pain management: a case report.

Schwannoma is a common neoplasm in the peripheral and central nervous systems. Sciatic nerve schwanommas are rare. We report the case of a 50-year-old woman who was referred for treatment of persistent neuropathic pain in the left lower limb after resection of a schwannoma on the left S1 nerve root. The patient's history goes back when she was 27 years old and started to have electric-like pain in her lower left limb upon intercourse. Examination revealed a left ovarian cyst which was surgically removed. Her pain persisted despite taking nonsteroidal anti inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Several years later a schwannoma on the left S1 nerve root was detected. The patient had surgical excision of the left S1 nerve root at the plexus along with the schwannoma. Following the surgery, she experienced pain upon sitting and touch, and had a limp in her left leg. She was prescribed NSAIDs, antidepressant and pregabalin. Despite the pharmacological treatment, the patient had persistent mild pain. Upon physical examination, the incision from her previous surgery was 4 cm away from the sacral midline and parallel to S1 and S2. The length of the incision was 3 cm. The patient had severe allodynia upon palpation at the area between S1 and L5 and the visual analog scale (VAS) score increased from 3 to 10. She had severe pain at rest and movement. Her neurologic exam revealed that the left lower extremity motor power showed mild weakness in the leg abduction, foot eversion, plantar and toes flexion, and in the hip extension. The sensory exam showed severe reduction in pinprick and temperature sensation in the lateral aspect of foot, lower leg and dorsolateral thigh and buttocks. Nerve stimulator guided injection was performed at the pain trigger point being 1 cm above the midline of the incision. Upon nerve stimulation the contraction of the gluteal muscle was observed. Then, 20 mL of the anesthetic mixture were injected. The patient had immediate pain relief after the block (VAS 1/10). She remained pain free for 15 days after which pain reappeared but with less severity (3/10). Repetitive sciatic nerve block was performed in a progressive manner and was shown to be effective in managing neuropathic pain.