Evaluation of the effects of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil on pain with the analgesia nociception index in the perioperative period in hysteroscopies under general anesthesia. A randomized prospective study.

Objectives To compare analgesia nociception index (ANI) values, visual analog scale (VAS) values, and hemodynamic parameters in hysteroscopy patients who received remifentanil and dexmedetomidine during general anesthesia. Methods: In total, 30 patients who underwent hysteroscopy between March and September 2016 at the University of Health Sciences Fatih Sultan Mehmet Health Research and Application Center, Ankara, Turkey were included in this prospective study. Standard hemodynamic monitoring, ANI, and bispectral index (BIS) monitoring were applied to the patients. At 10 min prior to induction, 1 µg/kg of remifentanil was applied in Group R (n=15) and 1 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine was applied in Group D (n=15). After induction, sevoflurane was used for maintenance with dexmedetomidine at 0.2-0.7 µg/kg/hour in Group D and remifentanil at 0.05-0.5 µg/kg/minute in Group R. Perioperative and postoperative analgesia levels (ANI and VAS, respectively), hemodynamics, and complications were recorded. Results: Even though the ANI levels in Group D were lower at the perioperative 5th and 10th minutes, the ANI values were between the targeted limits, except for the measurement after I-gel insertion, in both groups. Hemodynamic parameters were within normal limits, but the mean arterial pressures in Group R after induction, following I-gel placement, and at the perioperative 5th, 10th, and 20th minutes were lower and at postoperative 30th minute were significantly higher.   Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine and remifentanil are both efficacious agents for perioperative analgesia in hysteroscopy cases.

Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: comparison of efficacy of bupivacaine and levobupivacaine on postoperative pain control / Bloqueio do plano abdominal transverso guiado por ultrassom em pacientes submetidos à colecistectomia laparoscópica: comparação da eficácia de bupivacaína e levobupivacaína no controle da dor pós-operatória

Abstract Background and objective The use of transversus abdominis plane block with different local anesthetics is considered as a part of multimodal analgesia regimen in laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. However no studies have been published comparing bupivacaine and levobupivacaine for transversus abdominis plane block. We aimed to compare bupivacaine and levobupivacaine in ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods Fifty patients (ASA I/II), undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly allocated into two groups. Following anesthesia induction, ultrasound-guided bilateral transversus abdominis plane block was performed with 30 mL of bupivacaine 0.25% in Group B (n = 25) and 30 mL of levobupivacaine 0.25% in Group L (n = 25) for each side. The level of pain was evaluated using 10 cm visual analog scale (VAS) at rest and during coughing 1, 5, 15, 30 min and 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24 h after the operation. When visual analogue scale > 3, the patients received IV tenoxicam 20 mg. If visual analogue scale remained >3, they received IV. tramadol 1 mg.kg−1. In case of inadequate analgesia, a rescue analgesic was given. The analgesic requirement, time to first analgesic requirement was recorded. Results Visual analogue scale levels showed no difference except first and fifth minutes postoperatively where VAS was higher in Group L (p < 0.05). Analgesic requirement was similar in both groups. Time to first analgesic requirement was shorter in Group L (4.35 ± 6.92 min vs. 34.91 ± 86.26 min, p = 0.013). Conclusions Bupivacaine and levobupivacaine showed similar efficacy at TAP block in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Resumo Justificativa e objetivo O uso do bloqueio do plano transverso abdominal com diferentes anestésicos locais é considerado como parte do regime de analgesia multimodal em pacientes submetidos à colecistectomia laparoscópica. No entanto, nenhum estudo comparando bupivacaína e levobupivacaína para bloqueio do plano transverso abdominal foi publicado. Nosso objetivo foi comparar bupivacaína e levobupivacaína em bloqueio do plano transverso abdominal guiado por ultrassom em pacientes submetidos à colecistectomia laparoscópica. Métodos Cinquenta pacientes (ASA I/II), submetidos à colecistectomia laparoscópica foram alocados aleatoriamente em dois grupos. Após a indução da anestesia, o bloqueio do plano transverso abdominal bilateral guiado por ultrassom foi realizado com 30 mL de bupivacaína a 0,25% no Grupo B (n = 25) e 30 mL de levobupivacaína a 0,25% no Grupo L (n = 25) para cada lado. O nível de dor foi avaliado usando a escala visual analógica de 10 cm em repouso e durante a tosse em 1, 5, 15, 30 minutos e em 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 e 24 horas após a operação. Quando a escala visual analógica > 3, os pacientes receberam 10 mg de tenoxicam por via intravenosa (IV). Se a escala visual analógica permanecesse > 3, os pacientes recebiam tramadol IV (1 mg.kg−1). Em caso de analgesia inadequada, um analgésico de resgate foi administrado. A necessidade de analgésico e o tempo até a primeira solicitação de analgésico foram registrados. Resultados Os escores da escala visual analógica não mostraram diferença, exceto no primeiro e quinto minutos de pós-operatório, onde a escala visual analógica foi maior no Grupo L (p < 0,05). A necessidade de analgésico foi semelhante em ambos os grupos. O tempo até a primeira solicitação de analgésico foi menor no Grupo L (4,35 ± 6,92 min vs. 34,91 ± 86,26 min, p = 0,013). Conclusões Bupivacaína e levobupivacaína apresentaram eficácia similar no bloqueio TAP em pacientes submetidos à colecistectomia laparoscópica.

[Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: comparison of efficacy of bupivacaine and levobupivacaine on postoperative pain control]. / Bloqueio do plano abdominal transverso guiado por ultrassom em pacientes submetidos à colecistectomia laparoscópica: comparação da eficácia de bupivacaína e levobupivacaína no controle da dor pós­operatória.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The use of transversus abdominis plane block with different local anesthetics is considered as a part of multimodal analgesia regimen in laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. However no studies have been published comparing bupivacaine and levobupivacaine for transversus abdominis plane block. We aimed to compare bupivacaine and levobupivacaine in ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: Fifty patients (ASA I/II), undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly allocated into two groups. Following anesthesia induction, ultrasound-guided bilateral transversus abdominis plane block was performed with 30mL of bupivacaine 0.25% in Group B (n=25) and 30mL of levobupivacaine 0.25% in Group L (n=25) for each side. The level of pain was evaluated using 10cm visual analog scale (VAS) at rest and during coughing 1, 5, 15, 30min and 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24h after the operation. When visual analogue scale>3, the patients received IV tenoxicam 20mg. If visual analogue scale remained >3, they received IV. tramadol 1mg.kg-1. In case of inadequate analgesia, a rescue analgesic was given. The analgesic requirement, time to first analgesic requirement was recorded. RESULTS: Visual analogue scale levels showed no difference except first and fifth minutes postoperatively where VAS was higher in Group L (p<0.05). Analgesic requirement was similar in both groups. Time to first analgesic requirement was shorter in Group L (4.35±6.92min vs. 34.91±86.26min, p=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Bupivacaine and levobupivacaine showed similar efficacy at TAP block in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block in patients undergoing open inguinal hernia repair: 0.125% bupivacaine provides similar analgesic effect compared to 0.25% bupivacaine.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of 0.125% bupivacaine compared to 0.25% bupivacaine for ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in patients undergoing open inguinal hernia repair. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: Educational and research hospital. PATIENTS: Forty adult patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III undergoing elective primary unilateral open inguinal hernia repair under spinal anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in group I received 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine, whereas patients in group II received 20 mL of 0.125% bupivacaine for TAP block at the end of the surgery. MEASUREMENTS: Pain intensity was assessed at rest and during coughing using 10-cm visual analog scale score at 5, 15, 30, and 45 minutes and 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours after TAP block. Morphine consumption and time to first morphine requirement were recorded. MAIN RESULTS: Visual analog scale scores at rest and during coughing were not significantly different between groups at all time points measured. Twenty-four hours of morphine consumption (7.72±7.33 mg in group I and 6.06±5.20 mg in group II; P=.437) and time to first morphine requirement (182.35±125.16 minutes in group I and 143.21±87.28 minutes in group II; P=.332) were not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: 0.125% Bupivacaine provides similar analgesic effect compared to 0.25% bupivacaine for ultrasound-guided TAP block in patients undergoing open inguinal hernia repair.

Comparison of I-gel with Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway Regarding the Ease of Use and Clinical Performance.

OBJECTIVE: I-gel is a new supraglottic airway device without an inflatable cuff. We aimed to compare I-gel and the classic laryngeal mask airway (LMA) regarding the ease of use and clinical performance in Turkish population. METHODS: Fifty American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II patients were randomly allocated into two groups: Group I-gel and Group LMA. Insertion time and success in first attempt were recorded. Peak, plato and mean airway pressures, EtCO2, airway compliance and leak volume were periodically recorded during the operation. The presence of blood on device removal and postoperative sore throat were also assessed. RESULTS: The device insertion time in Group I-gel was shorter than that in Group LMA (21.00±4.15 vs. 30.40±12.17 s, p=0.001). The success rate in first attempt, peak, plato and mean airway pressures, EtCO2 and airway compliance did not differ between the groups. The leak volume was lower in Group I-gel 5 and 45 min after insertion (p=0.041 and p=0.027). The presence of blood on device removal and postoperative sore throat were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: I-gel may be a more advantageous supraglottic airway device compared with LMA.