Intravenous tramadol compared to propacetamol for postoperative analgesia following thyroidectomy.

We compared the efficacy and side effects of propacetamol (P), an injectable prodrug of acetaminophen, 2 g and tramadol (T), a weak synthetic opioid, 1.5 mg.kg-1, given intravenously following thyroidectomy. 80 patients were randomly assigned to blindly receive one dose of P or T on request in the PACU. Residual pain was treated with i.v. PCA morphine. Pain and patient satisfaction were assessed with Visual Analog Scales. Demographic and peroperative data were comparable in both groups. Although the morphine consumption was comparable (p = 0.71), the decrease in VAS pain scores was significantly higher following tramadol (p = 0.03). More patients complained of nausea and vomiting (p = 0.01) during the first two hours following injection of tramadol, but there was no difference throughout the whole study. Oversedation was not observed in any group. We conclude that a single dose of tramadol provides a better quality of analgesia than propacetamol during the first six hours after thyroidectomy, but fails to ensure optimal analgesia, since VAS pain scores failed to fall below 3 despite the use of supplemental morphine.

Predictive accuracy of target-controlled propofol and sufentanil coinfusion in long-lasting surgery.

BACKGROUND: The predictive accuracy of target concentration infusions of propofol has been documented only for less than 4 h, and no prospective study of sufentanil target controlled infusion is available. The authors investigated the predictive accuracy of pharmacokinetic models for propofol and sufentanil coadministered during long-lasting surgery. METHODS: Ten patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II, were studied during extended cervicofacial surgery. Target controlled infusion of propofol and sufentanil was administered during surgery using decisional algorithms, taking into consideration pain assessment, hemodynamic changes, and peroperative blood losses. Intrasubject data analysis included calculation of performance error, median performance error, median absolute performance error, divergence, and wobble. RESULTS: The range of plasma target concentrations was 2-5 microgram/ml for propofol and 0.2-1 ng/ml for sufentanil. Median performance error was -12.1% for propofol and -10% for sufentanil. The wobble values were 11.6% and 22.3% for propofol and sufentanil, respectively. The pharmacokinetic sets used slightly overpredicted the concentrations, with negative values of divergence of 2.92% and 0.22% units/h for propofol and sufentanil, for a mean infusion period of 762 min. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study demonstrates the predictive accuracy of the pharmacokinetic model for sufentanil infusion and confirms that for propofol during long-lasting surgery using standardized rules for the management of target controlled infusion and blood loss replacement.

Catheter entrapment by atrial suture during minimally invasive port-access cardiac surgery.

PURPOSE: The port-access approach allows surgeons to perform heart operations through small intercostal openings, or "ports". This technique requires new skills for anesthesiologists. A pulmonary artery venting (PAV) catheter and, in some cases, a coronary sinus catheter (for administration of retrograde cardioplegia) are positioned with the aid of fluoroscopy and transesophageal echography (TEE). Both catheters have a wider diameter than the more commonly used conventional PA catheter and present distinctive features. We report a case in which a pulmonary artery venting catheter was entrapped by a suture during a port-access procedure. CLINICAL FEATURES: A 35-yr-old man with severe mitral valve insufficiency was scheduled for valve repair. After a successful bypass procedure, resistance was felt while attempting to withdraw the PAV catheter. On fluoroscopy, fixation of the catheter at the heart level was established and perforation by suture was confirmed after injection of a contrast agent. Because of the risk of cardiac wall rupture and tamponade, the thorax was reopened. After release of some atrial sutures, the catheter could be withdrawn easily. Transfixion by a suture was confirmed by visual examination. CONCLUSION: The more frequent use of a PAV catheter in minimally invasive cardiac surgery with the port-access technique should remind the anesthesiologist of the higher risk of entrapment by surgical sutures. Surgeons should be aware of the risk of accidentally transfixing this catheter during closure of the atriotomy via the port.