RESUMO
Background: Uncontrolled elevation of intraoperative blood pressure can result in deleterious effects with increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Objectives: We aimed to compare nitroglycerine infusion with dexmedetomidine infusion in controlling accidental intraoperative uncontrolled hypertension. Methods: This comparative study was conducted on 73 hypertensive patients undergoing cancer surgeries who experienced uncontrolled intraoperative hypertension. The data of 38 patients were retrieved from the medical records for the nitroglycerine group and 35 patients were prospectively enrolled for the dexmedetomidine group. Group N received nitroglycerine infusion (0.3 - 1 µg/kg/min), while group D received dexmedetomidine infusion (0.2 - 0.7 µg/kg/h). Results: Both groups were comparable regarding their demographic data and clinical characteristics. Systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) values were significantly lower in group N compared to group D during the period between 60 and 120 minutes intraoperatively (P < 0.001). Heart rate values were significantly lower in group D than in group N (P < 0.001). Postoperative sedation scores were better for group D with lower analgesic requirements (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine infusion can be used to manage the uncontrolled intraoperative elevation of blood pressure in selected patient population.
RESUMO
Abstract Introduction: Inadequate pain control after major surgery can lead to significant complications. Ultrasound (US) guided plane blocks account for significant progress in regional anesthesia. Objective: This study explored the analgesic superiority of ultrasound-guided erector spinae (ESPB) and transversus abdominis (TAPB) plane blocks in patients undergoing major ovarian cancer surgery under general anesthesia. There have been no previous studies comparing their efficacy under these circumstances. Methods: This double-blind randomized comparative study included 60 patients undergoing major ovarian cancer surgery under general anesthesia. The ESPB group (n=30), received preoperative ultrasound-guided ESPB and the TAPB group (n=30), received preoperative low TAPB. Opioid consumption, HR, MAP, visual analogue scale (VAS) and adverse events were documented over 24 hours after surgery. Results: There was a highly significant difference in tramadol consumption between the two groups, with (95% CI: 16.23 to 50.43) and (95% CI: 59.23 to 95.43) for ESPB and TAPB groups, respectively. A significant difference (P < 0.01) was shown in intraoperative fentanyl consumption with (95% CI: 113 to 135.6) and (95% CI: 141.8 to 167.6) for ESPB and TAPB groups, respectively. A highly significant longer time to first analgesic request was recorded in the ESPB group (95% CI: 5.5 -15.3) (P < 0.001). VAS had a median of 2 (1-3) and 4 (2-6) for ESPB and TAPB groups, respectively, with F(1)=18.15, P=0.001 between groups. Postoperative HR and MAP in the TAPB group were significantly higher with more incidence of PONV. Conclusions: ESPB provided a more reliable analgesia versus TAPB in patients undergoing ovarian cancer surgery.
Resumen Introducción: El control inadecuado del dolor posterior a cirugía mayor puede generar complicaciones importantes. El bloqueo de los planos guiado por ecografía representa un avance significativo en anestesia regional. Objetivo: En el presente estudio se explora la superioridad analgésica de los bloqueos guiados por ecografía del plano erector de la espina (BPEE) y del plano transverso abdominal (BPTA) en pacientes sometidas a cirugía de cáncer de ovario bajo anestesia general. No se han hecho estudios previamente que comparen su eficacia bajo tales circunstancias. Métodos: Este estudio doble ciego, aleatorizado, comparativo, incluyó a 60 pacientes sometidas a cirugía mayor por cáncer de ovario, bajo anestesia general. El grupo del BPEE (n=30), recibió un BPEE guiado por ecografía, mientras que el grupo de BPTA (n=30), recibió un BPTA preoperatorio bajo. El consumo de opioides, la FC, la PAM, la escala visual analógica (EVA) y los eventos adversos, se documentaron durante las 24 horas posteriores a la cirugía. Resultados: Hubo una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en el consumo de tramadol entre los dos grupos, con un IC del 95% de 16,23 a 50,43 y un IC del 95% de 59,23 a 95,43 para los grupos de BPEE y de BPTA respectivamente. Se demostró una diferencia estadísticamente significativa (P < 0,01) en el consumo de fentanilo con un IC del 95%: 113 a 135,6 y un IC de 95%: 141,8 a 167,6 para los grupos de BPEE y BPTA, respectivamente. El tiempo transcurrido hasta la primera solicitud de analgésico en el grupo de BPEE fue significativamente más prolongado (IC 95%: 5,5 -15,3) (P < 0,001). La escala visual analógica - EVA - tuvo una mediana de 2 (1-3) y 4 (2-6) para los grupos del BPEE y BPTA, respectivamente, con F(1)=18,15, P=0,001 entre grupos. La FC y la PAM postoperatorias en el grupo de BPTA fueron significativamente superiores, con una mayor incidencia de nausea y vómito postoperatorios. Conclusiones: El BPEE proporcionó una analgesia más confiable que BPTA, en pacientes sometidas a cirugía de cáncer de ovario.
RESUMO
Background: In thoracic surgeries requiring thoracotomy incisions, correct positioning of the double-lumen endotracheal tube (DLT) is mandatory. After the pandemic of novel COVID-19, using simple, noninvasive technology such as lung ultrasound (LUS) can be important in avoiding the possibility of spreading infectious diseases or contagious infections that can follow using fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB). Objectives: We aimed to assess the accuracy of auscultation and LUS in relation to FOB in the assessment of DLT placement and to identify the possibility of using LUS as an alternative to FOB during DLT insertion. Methods: This diagnostic accuracy study was conducted according to STARD guidelines; enrolled 120 cases requiring DLT intubation. After DLT insertion, all patients were examined by stethoscope, then by LUS for determination of DLT position, and then confirmed by FOB in the same patient. Results: Three patients dropped out due to failed intubation, and only 117 cases were analyzed. Time was significantly longer for LUS than for auscultation and FOB and was insignificantly different between auscultation and FOB. Auscultation had 76.14% sensitivity, 34.48% specificity, and 65.81% accuracy in the determination of correct DLT placement. LUS had 92.05% sensitivity, 79.31% specificity, and 88.89% accuracy in detecting correct DLT placement. There was substantial agreement between LUS and FOB (κ = 0.705) and poor agreement between auscultation and FOB (κ = 0.104). Conclusions: LUS can be used as a simple, noninvasive tool for detecting DLT placement with a substantial agreement with FOB.
