Dexmedetomidine infusion during laparoscopic bariatric surgery: the effect on recovery outcome variables.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine (Dex), an alpha(2) agonist, has well-known anesthetic and analgesic-sparing effects. We designed this prospective, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled dose-ranging study to evaluate the effect of Dex on both early and late recovery after laparoscopic bariatric surgery. METHODS: Eighty consenting ASA II-III morbidly obese patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: (1) control group received a saline infusion during surgery, (2) Dex 0.2 group received an infusion of 0.2 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1) IV, (3) Dex 0.4 group received an infusion of 0.4 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1) IV, and (4) Dex 0.8 group received an infusion of 0.8 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1) IV. Mean arterial blood pressure values were maintained within +/-25% of the preinduction baseline values by varying the inspired desflurane concentration. Perioperative hemodynamic variables, postoperative pain scores, and the need for "rescue" analgesics and antiemetics were recorded at specific intervals. Follow-up evaluations were performed on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 2, and 7 to assess severity of pain, analgesic requirements, patient satisfaction with pain management, quality of recovery, as well as resumption of dietary intake and recovery of bowel function. RESULTS: Dex infusion, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1), reduced the average end-tidal desflurane concentration by 19, 20, and 22%, respectively. However, it failed to facilitate a significantly faster emergence from anesthesia. Although the intraoperative hemodynamic values were similar in the four groups, arterial blood pressure values were significantly reduced in the Dex 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 groups compared with the control group on admission to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) (P < 0.05). The length of the PACU stay was significantly reduced in the Dex groups (81 +/- 31 to 87 +/- 24 vs 104 +/- 33 min in the control group, P < 0.05). The amount of rescue fentanyl administered in the PACU was significantly less in the Dex 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 groups versus control group (113 +/- 85, 108 +/- 67, and 120 +/- 78 vs 187 +/- 99 microg, respectively, P < 0.05). The percentage of patients requiring antiemetic therapy was also reduced in the Dex groups (30, 30, and 10% vs 70% in the control group). However, the patient-controlled analgesia morphine requirements on PODs 1 and 2 were not different among the four groups. Pain scores in the PACU, and on PODs 1, 2, and 7, in the three Dex groups were not different from the control group. Finally, quality of recovery scores and times to recovery of bowel function and hospital discharge did not differ among the four groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive use of an intraoperative Dex infusion (0.2-0.8 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1)) decreased fentanyl use, antiemetic therapy, and the length of stay in the PACU. However, it failed to facilitate late recovery (e.g., bowel function) or improve the patients' overall quality of recovery. When used during bariatric surgery, a Dex infusion rate of 0.2 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1) is recommended to minimize the risk of adverse cardiovascular side effects.

Transdermal scopolamine: an alternative to ondansetron and droperidol for the prevention of postoperative and postdischarge emetic symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Given the controversy regarding the use of droperidol and the high cost of the 5-HT3 antagonists, a cost-effective alternative for routine use as a prophylactic antiemetic would be desirable. We designed two parallel, randomized, double-blind sham and placebo-controlled studies to compare the early and late antiemetic efficacy and adverse event profile of transdermal scopolamine (TDS) 1.5 mg, to ondansetron 4 mg IV, and droperidol 1.25 mg IV for antiemetic prophylaxis as part of a multimodal regimen in "at risk" surgical populations. METHODS: A total of 150 patients undergoing major laparoscopic (n = 80) or plastic (n = 70) surgery procedures received either an active TDS patch (containing scopolamine 1.5 mg) or a similar appearing sham patch 60 min before entering the operating room. All patients received a standardized general anesthetic technique. A second study medication was administered in a 2-mL numbered syringe containing either saline (for the two active TDS groups), droperidol, 1.25 mg, or ondansetron, 4 mg (for the sham patch groups), and was administered IV near the end of the procedure. The occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting/retching, need for rescue antiemetics, and the complete response rates (i.e., absence of protracted nausea or repeated episodes of emesis requiring antiemetic rescue medication) was reported. In addition, complaints of visual disturbances, dry mouth, drowsiness, and restlessness were noted up to 72 h after surgery. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in any of the emetic outcomes or need for rescue antiemetics among the TDS, droperidol, and ondansetron groups in the first 72 h after surgery. The complete response rates varied from 41% to 51%, and did not significantly differ among the treatment groups. The overall incidence of dry mouth was significantly more frequent in the TDS groups than in the droperidol and ondansetron groups (21% vs 3%). CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with TDS was as effective as droperidol (1.25 mg) or ondansetron (4 mg) in preventing nausea and vomiting in the early and late postoperative periods. However, the use of a TDS patch is more likely to produce a dry mouth.

The Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health 1955-2005: Its historic milestones and evolutionary changes.

From its very inception, the Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health (JMWH) played a critical role in fostering and documenting major shifts in the professional landscape of midwifery through its editorial content. This article traces the history and evolution of JMWH, commemorates its rich heritage and monumental growth over the last half century, highlights issues that have transcended its 50-year history, and acknowledges the contributions of its leadership ...past and present.

The efficacy of celecoxib premedication on postoperative pain and recovery times after ambulatory surgery: a dose-ranging study.

UNLABELLED: Recently, the Food and Drug Administration increased the celecoxib dosage recommendation from 200 mg to 400 mg for acute pain management. No studies have directly compared the analgesic efficacy of different doses of celecoxib for the prevention of postoperative pain. In this prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, we compared oral celecoxib 200 mg to 400 mg when administered for premedication of outpatients undergoing minor ear-nose-throat surgery. A total of 93 healthy outpatients were assigned to 1 of 3 study groups: control (placebo; n = 30), celecoxib 200 mg (n = 30), or celecoxib 400 mg (n = 33). The study drug was given orally 30-45 min before surgery, and all patients received a standardized general anesthetic technique. During the postoperative period, pain scores (0-10), recovery times, the need for rescue analgesics, quality of recovery (0-100), patient satisfaction with pain management (0-100), and side effects were recorded. Pain was assessed at 30-min intervals using a verbal rating scale, with 0 = no pain to 10 = worst pain imaginable, in the postanesthesia care unit and day surgery unit recovery areas and at 24 h after surgery. Celecoxib 400 mg was significantly more effective than 200 mg (and placebo) in reducing postoperative pain. Both celecoxib 200 mg and 400 mg were more effective than placebo in reducing the postoperative fentanyl requirement (74 +/- 67 micro g and 56 +/- 62 micro g versus 120 +/- 86 micro g, respectively). The larger dose of celecoxib significantly reduced the percentage of patients with severe pain at discharge (6% versus 37% and 30% in the celecoxib 200 mg and control groups, respectively). The median number of doses of oral analgesic medication after discharge was also significantly reduced in the celecoxib 400 mg group (0 versus 2 and 2 in the celecoxib 200 mg and control groups, respectively). However, no differences were found among the three study groups with respect to recovery times and secondary outcome variables (e.g., patient satisfaction and quality of recovery). We conclude that oral premedication with celecoxib 400 mg was more effective than 200 mg in reducing severe postoperative pain and the need for rescue analgesic medication in the postoperative period. IMPLICATIONS: Oral premedication with celecoxib 400 mg was more effective than 200 mg in reducing postoperative pain and the need for rescue analgesic medication in the early postoperative period. However, neither dose of celecoxib was more effective than a placebo in facilitating the recovery process after outpatient surgery.