RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind exploratory study. PURPOSE: To compare effects of dexmedetomidine or a subanesthetic dose of ketamine on the amplitude and latency of transcranial electrically generated motor evoked potentials. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) is a standard anesthesia technique for transcranial electrical motor evoked potential monitoring in spine surgery. We aimed to determine whether the use of dexmedetomidine and ketamine as a component of TIVA exerted any beneficial effect on the quality of monitoring. METHODS: A total of 90 American Society of Anesthesiologist grade I-III patients, aged 18-65 years, with a motor power of ≥4/5 grade as per the Medical Research Council Scale in all four limbs who were scheduled for elective spine surgery under transcranial electrical motor evoked potential monitoring were enrolled. The subjects were randomly allocated into the following three groups: group PD who received 0.5 µg/kg/hr dexmedetomidine infusion, group PK who received 0.5 mg/kg/hr ketamine infusion, and group PS who received normal saline infusion, along with standard propofol-fentanyl based TIVA regime. Amplitude and latency of bilateral motor evoked potentials of the tibialis anterior and abductor halluces muscle were recorded at Ti (at train-of-four ratio >90%), T30 (30 minutes post-Ti), T60 (60 minutes post-Ti), and Tf (at the end of spine manipulation). RESULTS: Baseline median amplitudes were comparable among the study groups. In group PK, we noted a gradually enhanced response by 24%-100% from the baseline amplitude. The median amplitudes of all the muscles were higher in group PK than those in groups PS and PD at time points T60 and Tf (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that compared with dexmedetomidine and control treatment, a subanesthetic dose of ketamine caused gradual improvement in amplitudes without affecting the latency.
RESUMO
Background: Chronic nononcological perineal pain has been effectively managed by ganglion Impar block. Chemical neurolysis, cryoablation, and radiofrequency ablation have been the accepted methods of blockade. Recently, pulsed radiofrequency, a novel variant of conventional radiofrequency, has been used for this purpose. Study Design: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Setting: Two different interventional pain management centers in India. Objective: To compare the efficacy of conventional radiofrequency and pulsed radiofrequency for gangliom Impar block. Methods: The patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups. In the conventional radiofrequency (CRF) group (N = 34), conventional radiofrequency ablation was done, and in the PRF pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) group (N = 31), pulsed radiofrequency ablation was done. After informed and written consent, fluoroscopy-guided ganglion Impar block was performed through the first intracoccygeal approach. The extent of pain relief was assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) at 24 hours, and at the first, third, and sixth weeks following the intervention. A questionnaire to evaluate subjective patient satisfaction was also used at each follow-up visit. Results: In the CRF group, the mean VAS score decreased significantly from the baseline value at each follow-up visit. But in the PRF group, this decrease was insignificant except at 24-hour follow-up. Intergroup comparison also showed significantly better pain relief in the CRF group as compared with the PRF group. At the end of follow-up, 28 patients (82%) in the CRF group and four patients (13%) in the PRF group had excellent results, as assessed by the subjective patient satisfaction questionnaire. There was no complication in any patient of either study group, except for short-lived infection at the site of skin puncture in a few. Conclusion: Ganglion Impar block by conventional radiofrequency provided a significantly better quality of pain relief with no major side effects in patients with chronic nononcological perineal pain as compared with pulsed radiofrequency. Limitations: The short-term follow-up period of only six weeks was a major drawback associated with this study.