Hemiarthroplasty in high risk elderly patient under epidural anesthesia with 0.75% ropivacaine-fentanyl versus 0.5% bupivacaine-fentanyl: Clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Anesthetic management of elderly patients is a challenge as aging makes them more susceptible to hemodynamic fluctuations during regional anesthesia. This study was aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of epidural 0.75% ropivacaine fentanyl (RF)- with 0.5% bupivacaine-fentanyl (BF) for hemiarthroplasty in high-risk elderly patients. METHODS: Sixty elderly consented patients of either sex with American Society of Anesthesiologist ASA II and III, scheduled for elective hemiarthroplasty were randomized into two Groups of 30 patients to receive epidural study solution of 15 mL of 0.75% Ropivacaine or 0.5% Bupivacaine with 1 mL fentanyl (50 µg). The hemodynamic variability with onset and duration of sensory and motor blocks were recorded. The adequacy and quality of surgical anesthesia were assessed. The post-epidural nausea and vomiting, shivering, respiratory parameters, or any other side effects were also recorded. RESULTS: There was no difference in the demographic profile between groups. The mean onset time to achieve sensory block to the T10 dermatome was rapid in the Group BF (12.4±6.9 vs. 17.5±3.7 min in Group RF). The mean time to achieve motor block was 17.5±3.4 min in Group BF versus 21.7±7.8 min in Group RF. The intraoperative hemodynamic fluctuations showed statistically significant differences between groups. The pruritis was observed in five patients but post-epidural shivering, nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression, or urinary retention were not observed in any patient. CONCLUSION: Epidural 0.75% Ropivacaine with fentanyl showed better clinical profile as compared to 0.5% Bupivacaine with fentanyl for hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients.

Subarachnoid block with Taylor's approach for surgery of lower half of the body and lower limbs: A clinical teaching study.

BACKGROUND: Subarachnoid anesthesia is used as the sole anesthetic technique for below umbilical surgeries, but patients with deformed spine represent technical difficulty for its establishment. This study was aimed to find out whether training of Taylor's approach to residents on normal spine is beneficial for establishing subarachnoid block in patients with deformed spine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The total of 174 patients of ASA I-III with normal and deformed spine of both genders scheduled for below umbilical surgeries under the subarachnoid block and met the inclusion criteria, were enrolled for this two-phased clinical teaching study. All participating residents have performed more than 100 subarachnoid block with the median and paramedian approach. Residents were randomized into two equal groups. During the first phase program, Group I was taught Taylor's approach by hands on method for the subarachnoid block while Group II kept on observation for the technique. During the second phase of program, Group II was also taught Taylor's approach for establishing the subarachnoid block. Block success was defined according to clinical efficacy. RESULTS: The results of teaching of Taylor's approach were encouraging. Initially, the residents faced difficulty for establishing the subarachnoid block in deformed spine but after learning by observation and practical hands on, both groups had successfully performed the subarachnoid block by Taylor's approach in one or more attempts in patient with deformed spine with the acceptable failure rate of 15%. CONCLUSION: Taylor's approach for establishing subarachnoid block in deformed spine should be taught to residents on normal spine.

Clinical evaluation of intravenous paracetamol versus Parecoxib for postoperative analgesia after general anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain has a significant impact on patient's recovery and optimal nonopioid analgesia would reduce postoperative pain and pain-related complications. This study was aimed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous paracetamol versus parecoxib for postoperative analgesia after surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight adult consented patients belonging to ASA I and II, scheduled for surgery, were randomly allocated in two treatment groups receiving either infusion of paracetamol (1 gm) or parecoxib (40 mg). The surgical and anesthetic techniques were standardized. Postoperative pain was assessed using visual analog score (VAS) at rest, during coughing and movement. The primary variables were the differences between the mean values of postoperative pain scores, time of first dose of rescue analgesic (tramadol) required, and patient satisfaction throughout the first 12 postoperatively. RESULTS: There was no significant difference among groups to first request for tramadol. The VAS score was significantly less in parecoxib group at rest compared to paracetamol group (P<0.05), but the same did not differ for pain score while coughing and movement. Patients in the parecoxib group were more satisfied regarding the postoperative pain management at 12 h postoperatively. The incidence of adverse side effects was infrequent in both the groups. CONCLUSION: Postoperative nonopioid intravenous analgesia with paracetamol and parecoxib is comparable in the early postoperative period with no adverse effects.