Addition of midazolam to continuous postoperative epidural bupivacaine infusion reduces requirement for rescue analgesia in children undergoing upper abdominal and flank surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of adding midazolam to continuous epidural infusion of bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in children. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study. SETTING: Tertiary-care center. PATIENTS: 44 ASA physical status I and II children in age groups of two to 10 years, undergoing elective upper abdominal and flank surgery. INTERVENTIONS: At the end of surgery, patients were randomly allocated to receive epidural infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine alone (Group B) or with 20 microg/kg/hr midazolam (Group BM) for 12 hours at the rate of 0.2 mL/kg/hr. MEASUREMENTS: Pain, motor block, and sedation were assessed at predetermined times over 24 hours. Intravenous fentanyl was used as rescue analgesic for the first 12 hours, and tramadol for next 12 hours. Patients were followed at one week, one month, and one year for any neurological deficits. MAIN RESULTS: The number of patients requiring rescue analgesia during infusion was significantly lower in Group BM (7 vs. 17 in Group B; P < 0.001). Time to first rescue analgesia was significantly prolonged in Group BM compared with Group B (P < 0.001). Frequency of fentanyl (P < 0.001) and tramadol (P = 0.001) administration as rescue analgesia was significantly less in Group BM. Significantly lower median pain scores were obtained in Group BM than Group B at all time intervals (P < 0.05). Greater sedation scores were noted in Group BM at all time intervals postoperatively except at 4 hours (P < 0.05). No motor block was observed in any child during the study. No neurological deficit was reported in any child in the one year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Addition of 20 microg/kg/hr of midazolam to postoperative continuous epidural infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine reduces the requirement for rescue analgesia in children following upper abdominal and flank surgery.

Epidural butorphanol-bupivacaine analgesia for postoperative pain relief after abdominal hysterectomy.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of epidural butorphanol with and without bupivacaine in providing postoperative analgesia following abdominal hysterectomy. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blinded study. SETTINGS: Postoperative recovery area of a university-affiliated medical center. PATIENTS: 60 ASA physical status I and II women, aged 20-65 years, undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to three groups during the postoperative period to receive one of three epidural regimens: two mg of butorphanol in 10 mL of normal saline (Group 1), two mg of butorphanol in 10 mL of 0.125% bupivacaine (Group 2), or two mg of butorphanol in 10 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine (Group 3). MEASUREMENTS: Onset and duration of analgesia were recorded. Hemodynamic variables, pain scores, sedation scores, and respiratory rate were monitored for 24 hours. Frequency and severity of respiratory depression, sedation, pruritus, nausea, and vomiting were recorded. MAIN RESULTS: The addition of butorphanol to bupivacaine resulted in significantly (P < 0.05) faster onset of pain relief. The duration of analgesia was prolonged in patients receiving butorphanol with bupivacaine combination (8.68 +/- 0.82 hrs, 9.82 +/- 0.54 hrs) as compared with butorphanol alone (4.35 +/- 0.66 hrs; P < 0.05). The differences between Groups 2 and 3 were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of two mg of butorphanol to 0.125% of epidural bupivacaine resulted in rapid onset and longer duration of analgesia than did butorphanol alone.

Comparison of butorphanol and thiopentone vs fentanyl and thiopentone for laryngeal mask airway insertion.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion conditions using a combination of butorphanol and thiopentone vs fentanyl and thiopentone. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, and double-blind study. SETTING: Operating theater. PATIENTS: One hundred four females, with American Society of Anesthesiologists grades I and II, diagnosed with carcinoma cervix scheduled for intracavitary implant placement, were recruited into the study. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups of 52 each. INTERVENTION: Anesthesia was induced with butorphanol (30 microg kg(-1)) and thiopentone in group B and fentanyl (1.5 microg kg(-1)) and thiopentone in group F, followed by LMA insertion. Anesthesia was maintained with O2, N2O, and isoflurane with spontaneous ventilation. MEASUREMENTS: Six variables were noted on a 3-point scale: jaw relaxation (nil/slight/gross), ease of insertion (easy/difficult/impossible), swallowing (nil/slight/gross), coughing/gagging (nil/slight/gross), limb/head movement (nil/slight/gross), and laryngospasm (nil/slight/gross). Postoperatively, sedation score was assessed on a 4-point scale at 1/2 hour, 1 hour, and 2 hours. MAIN RESULTS: The 2 groups were demographically similar. Incidence of full jaw relaxation at first attempt was significantly higher in group B vs F (48 vs 35 patients, P = 0.003). Insertion was easy in 48 vs 37 patients in group B and F, respectively (P = 0.017). The incidence of swallowing, patient movements, and laryngospasm was comparable among the groups. Coughing/gagging was significantly lower in group B (P = 0.008). Significantly more patients were sedated in group B at 1/2 hour (P = 0.010) and 1 hour (P = 0.000). None of the patients were deeply sedated at 1 hour. At 2 hours, all patients were awake. CONCLUSION: The use of butorphanol and thiopentone as induction agents produced excellent LMA insertion conditions compared to fentanyl and thiopentone (98% vs 86% success rate with 92% vs 71% easy insertion).

Comparative evaluation of midazolam and ketamine with midazolam alone as oral premedication.

BACKGROUND: Oral premedication with midazolam and ketamine is widely used in pediatric anesthesia to reduce emotional trauma and ensure smooth induction. However, various dosing regimens when used alone or in combination have variable efficacy and side effect profile. The aim of our study was to investigate and compare the efficacy of oral midazolam alone with a low-dose combination of oral midazolam and ketamine. METHODS: We performed a prospective randomized double-blind study in 100 children who were randomly allocated into two groups. Group M received 0.5 mg.kg(-1) oral midazolam and group MK received 0.25 mg.kg(-1) oral midazolam with 2.5 mg.kg(-1) oral ketamine. The preoperative sedation score, ease of parental separation and ease of mask acceptance were evaluated on a 4-point scale. The time to recovery from anesthesia and to achieve satisfactory Aldrete score was also noted. RESULTS: Uniform and acceptable sedation scores were seen in both the groups (group M 95.9%; group MK 97.96%), without any serious side effects. However, the combination offered significantly more children in an awake, calm and quiet state, who were easily separated from their parents (73.46% in MK vs 41% in group M). The induction scores were comparable between the groups. The recovery room characteristics and time to achieve satisfactory Aldrete score were also comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Oral midazolam alone and a combination of midazolam with ketamine provide equally effective anxiolysis and separation characteristics. However, the combination provided more children in an awake, calm and quiet state who could be separated easily from parents.

Paramedian lumbar epidural catheter insertion with patients in the sitting position is equally successful in the flexed and unflexed spine.

Positioning for placement of an epidural catheter can be quite painful for patients with lower limb injuries. We randomly allocated 50 patients scheduled for surgery after lower limb injuries for placement of a lumbar epidural catheter in the sitting position with the back in the neutral unflexed position by either the midline or paramedian approach. If the approach failed after two attempts, patients were placed in a flexed-spine position, and the procedure was attempted again. Technical difficulties and complications were recorded. In 17 patients in the midline group, and 1 patient in the paramedian group, it was not possible to insert the needle initially, and a flexed-spine position was required (P < 0.05). The incidences of resistance to catheter insertion (eight versus one), paresthesia (seven versus zero), and appearance of blood in the catheter (six versus zero) were significantly more frequent in the midline compared with the paramedian approach. The midline group also experienced more discomfort than the paramedian group. We conclude that, with the patient sitting with an unflexed spine, it is usually possible to insert an epidural catheter with the paramedian approach.

Prevention of nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgery: combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone is the right choice.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of a combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgery compared with ondansetron alone. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study with prestudy power analysis performed to determine the sample size. SETTING: A tertiary teaching hospital. METHOD: One hundred patients undergoing tympanomastoidectomy under general anesthesia were included in the study. Patients in group O (n = 50) received ondansetron 4 mg and those in group OD (n = 50) received ondansetron 4 mg with dexamethasone 8 mg 30 minutes before the end of surgery. All patients were monitored for nausea score, episodes of vomiting, and rescue antiemetic requirement in 48 hours after surgery. The total number of complete responders was calculated. Patients' satisfaction at the end of the study period was also estimated. RESULTS: In patients receiving combination antiemetic (group OD), the nausea score was significantly less (p < .01) at 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery. The total incidence of vomiting was reduced from 28% in group O to 6% in group OD. Rescue antiemetic requirement was significantly less (p < .01) in group OD. The number of complete responders significantly improved in the combination group (92% vs 62%). The patients were also found to be more satisfied in this group. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis with a combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone decreased the incidence of nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgery to a minimum and improved patients' satisfaction significantly in the postoperative period.

Caudal neostigmine with bupivacaine produces a dose-independent analgesic effect in children.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy and duration of varying doses of caudal neostigmine with plain bupivacaine and its side effects in children undergoing genito-urinary surgery. METHODS: In a randomized double-blind prospective study 80 boys aged two to eight years scheduled for surgical repair of hypospadias were allocated randomly to one of four groups (n = 20 each) and received either only caudal 0.25% plain bupivacaine 0.5 mL.kg(-1) (Group I) or 0.25% plain bupivacaine 0.5 mL.kg(-1) with neostigmine (Groups II-IV) in doses of 2, 3 and 4 microg.kg(-1) respectively. Postoperative pain was assessed for 24 hr using an objective pain score. Blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, total amount of analgesic consumed and adverse effects were also recorded. RESULTS: The duration of postoperative analgesia in Group I (5.1 +/- 2.3 hr) was significantly shorter than in the other three groups (II -16.6 +/- 4.9 hr; III - 17.2 +/- 5.5 hr; IV - 17.0 +/- 5.8 hr; P < 0.05). Total analgesic (paracetamol) consumption was significantly more in Group I (697.6 +/- 240.7 mg) than in the groups receiving caudal neostigmine (II - 248.0 +/- 178.4; III - 270.2 +/- 180.8 and IV -230.6 +/- 166.9 mg; P < 0.05). Groups II, III and IV were comparable with regards to duration of postoperative analgesia and total analgesic consumption (P > 0.05). Incidence of nausea and vomiting were comparable in all four groups. No significant alteration in vital signs or any other adverse effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Caudal neostigmine (2, 3 and 4 microg.kg(-1)) with bupivacaine produces a dose-independent analgesic effect ( approximately 16-17 hr) in children as compared to those receiving caudal bupivacaine alone (approximately five hours) and a reduction in postoperative rescue analgesic consumption without increasing the incidence of adverse effects.

Comparison of ondansetron with ondansetron plus dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis in children undergoing strabismus surgery.

BACKGROUND: Children undergoing strabismus surgery have a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Ondansetron plus dexamethasone is effective in reducing its incidence in many surgical procedures. PURPOSE: To examine the efficacy of ondansetron plus dexamethasone in children undergoing strabismus surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind study of 100 children 2 to 12 years old, in American Society of Anesthesiologists classes I and II, and undergoing strabismus surgery with the use of general anesthesia was conducted. Children received normal saline (n = 31), an injection of 0.15 mg/kg of ondansetron (n = 39), or an injection of 0.15 mg/kg of ondansetron and 0.2 mg/kg of dexamethasone (n = 30). Postoperatively, children were monitored for the number of emetic episodes, Steward recovery score, and need for a rescue antiemetic. RESULTS: The incidence of vomiting was 64.5% in the group receiving saline, 33.3% in the group receiving ondansetron, and 10% in the group receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone (P < .001). The incidence of early vomiting (0 to 4 hours) and the need for a rescue antiemetic were significantly lower in the groups receiving ondansetron (P < .01) and ondansetron plus dexamethasone (P < .001) compared with the group receiving saline; however, the former two groups were comparable in this regard. In the late postoperative period (4 to 24 hours), the incidence of vomiting and the need for a rescue antiemetic were not significantly different among the groups. Vomiting was significantly more severe in the group receiving saline compared with the groups receiving ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone at all times (P < .01 and P < .001, respectively). However, the latter two groups were comparable in this regard. CONCLUSION: Ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone were equally effective in preventing early nausea and vomiting in children following strabismus surgery. However, the efficacy of dexamethasone in late postoperative nausea and vomiting could not be demonstrated. Further studies with a large population and different doses of dexamethasone may be warranted.

A comparison of halothane and sevoflurane for bronchoscopic removal of foreign bodies in children.

The present study was designed to compare induction and recovery characteristics of sevoflurane and halothane for rigid bronchoscopy for removal of foreign bodies in tracheobronchial tree in children. Forty four children (age 1-4 years) were allocated randomly to two groups to receive either halothane (group H; n=22) or sevoflurane (group S; n=22) in oxygen. A graded inhalation technique was used with maximum inspiratory concentration of 5% for halothane and 8% for sevoflurane. Time for loss of consciousness and induction time in group H and group S were 2.3+/-0.4 min vs 2.2+/-0.4 min (p>0.05) and 4.6+/-0.7 min vs 4.9+/-0.6 min (p>0.05) respectively. Intubation conditions with rigid bronchoscope were similar in both groups. Fewer children in group H had vocal cord movements as compared to group S on laryngoscopy (3 vs 8, p>0.05). Six children in group H and two children in group S had disturbances of cardiac rhythm (p>0.05). Emergence time was significantly shorter in group S as compared to group H (group H - 29.6+/-10.7 min vs group S- 12.3+/-7.6 min, p<0.05). Modified Aldrete's score of 8 was achieved significantly faster in group S as compared to group H (group H - 33.8+/-9.3 min vs group S- 17.3+/-6.8 min, p<0.05). Adverse events during induction and recovery were comparable between the two groups except for significantly high incidence of excitement in group S. In conclusion, halothane is as suitable as sevoflurane for children undergoing rigid bronchoscopy for airway foreign body retrieval, but sevoflurane has a quicker recovery.

Comparison of regional nerve block to epidural anaesthesia in day care arthroscopic surgery of the knee.

Day care minimally invasive surgery demands minimal complications with anaesthesia. Nerve blocks are increasingly being employed for surgical procedures on the lower limb, and we attempted to evaluate their benefits and drawbacks in a prospective randomised study in patients undergoing knee arthroscopy. We compared the effectiveness, onset time, duration of analgesia, patient acceptance, failure rate and post-operative comfort of epidural anaesthesia (with 20 ml of 2% lidocaine with adrenaline 1 in 200000) and peripheral nerve blocks (combined 3-in-1 and sciatic nerve block, with 50 ml of 1% lignocaine with adrenaline 1 in 200000, using nerve stimulator). Forty nine cases were randomised to receive either single shot epidural anaesthesia (Group-I, n = 23) or combined 3-in-1 and sciatic nerve block (Group-II, n = 26). The anaesthesia procedure and analgesia onset time was longer in Group-II (p < 0.001), with skin incision being significantly delayed as compared to group-I (45.2+/-6.2min vs 30.0+/-5.4 min respectively) (p < 0.001). Haemodynamic changes were comparable in both groups during the study period. All patients had complete analgesia at skin incision in group-I as compared to 89.1% in group-II (p < 0.05). However 52.2% of patients in group-I required rescue analgesia postoperatively, as compared to only 18.7% in group-II (p < 0.05). We concluded that even though combined 3-in-1 and sciatic nerve block technique has longer anaesthesia induction time, the lesser need for postoperative rescue analgesia, and lesser potential complications like inadvertent spinal puncture, retention of urine and late onset of back pain, make this an attractive option for day care arthroscopy. The use of a nerve stimulator ensures accuracy, patient counselling allows good cooperation, and advance planning can include potential skin incision delays.

Difficult retrograde endotracheal intubation: the utility of a pharyngeal loop.

UNLABELLED: Direct laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation remains the technique of choice to achieve control of the airway. Alternative or additional techniques of airway control are required whenever an airway is deemed difficult because of anatomical and/or technical reasons. The retrograde intubation technique is an important option for gaining airway access from below the vocal cords in such situations (1). We report successful management and the problems encountered while gaining the upper airway by the retrograde catheter method in a patient having bilateral fibrous ankylosis of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). IMPLICATIONS: A 30-yr-old woman presented for redo-release of bilateral temporomandibular joint ankylosis under general anesthesia. During the previous anesthetic for primary release of ankylosis, tracheostomy was done, as conventional blind nasotracheal and retrograde intubation attempts failed several times. This case report describes the method for overcoming the difficulties of a retrograde intubation procedure in removing the guiding catheter nasally by using a pharyngeal loop assembly.