Role of scalp nerve block in improving the quality of rehabilitation in patients after meningioma resection: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we analyzed whether scalp nerve block with ropivacaine can improve the quality of rehabilitation in patients after meningioma resection. METHODS: We included 150 patients who were undergoing craniotomy in our hospital and categorized them into 2 groups - observation group (patients received an additional regional scalp nerve block anesthesia) and control group (patients underwent intravenous general anesthesia for surgery), using the random number table method approach (75 patients in each group). The main indicator of the study was the Karnofsky Performance Scale scores of patients at 3 days postoperatively, and the secondary indicator was the anesthesia satisfaction scores of patients after awakening from anesthesia. The application value of different anesthesia modes was studied and compared in the 2 groups. RESULTS: Patients in the observation group showed better anesthesia effects than those in the control group, with significantly higher Karnofsky Performance Scale scores at 3 days postoperatively (75.02 vs 66.43, P < .05) and anesthesia satisfaction scores. Compared with patients in the control group, patients in the observation group had lower pain degrees at different times after the surgery, markedly lower dose of propofol and remifentanil for anesthesia, and lower incidence of adverse reactions and postoperative complications. In addition, the satisfaction score of the patients and their families for the treatment was higher and the results of all the indicators were better in the observation group than in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Scalp nerve block with ropivacaine significantly improves the quality of short-term postoperative rehabilitation in patients undergoing elective craniotomy for meningioma resection. This is presumably related to the improvements in intraoperative hemodynamics, relief from postoperative pain, and reduction in postoperative nausea and vomiting.

The effectiveness of esketamine and propofol versus dezocine and propofol sedation during gastroscopy: A randomized controlled study.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Propofol is widely used in painless gastroscopy. However, sedation with propofol alone might increase the risk of respiratory and circulatory complications. This randomized clinical study compares the efficacy and safety of esketamine or dezocine combined with intravenous (IV) propofol in patients undergoing gastroscopy. METHODS: A total of 102 patients were enrolled in this study and randomized into two groups. All patients were adults aged 18-64 years who underwent upper gastrointestinal gastroscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups to receive esketamine (0.3 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group E) or dezocine (0.05 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group D). In both groups, the drugs were administered intravenously. The primary outcome was the dose of propofol which provided a satisfactory sedative effect, both to the endoscopist and the patients. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, side effects (such as hypotension, nausea and vomiting and agitation), and the number of adverse circulatory and respiratory events. RESULTS: Data of 83 patients were analysed in the present study. Dosage of propofol required in group E (1.44 mg/kg ± 0.67 mg/kg) was significantly lower compared with that in group D (2.12 mg/kg ± 0.37 mg/kg) (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in recovery time, side effects, and the frequency of sedation-related adverse events between the two groups. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The study indicates that intravenous injection of propofol and esmketamine is more effective for gastroscopy. Use of esketamine reduces the total amount of propofol required in ASA I-II patients undergoing gastroscopy compared with single use of dezocine. It also provides more stable hemodynamics, without affecting the recovery time and side effects such as respiratory and circulatory adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (www.chictr.org.cn; registration number: ChiCTR2100051814) on 05/10/2021.