Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Anesth Essays Res ; 14(1): 92-99, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32843800

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of retrobulbar block versus intraoperative ketamine infusion in eye enucleation or evisceration under general anesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I and II undergoing eye enucleation or evisceration were randomly allocated to three equal groups (15 patients each). General anesthesia was used as the standardized technique in all patients. Group R received a single retrobulbar injection, Group K received intravenous ketamine infusion, and Group C received normal saline with the same rate of ketamine infusion. Intraoperative heart rate and mean arterial pressure, recovery time, postoperative pain score, time to first rescue analgesic, number of patients who required rescue analgesia, and any adverse events were reported. RESULTS: Postoperative pain Visual Analog Scale was significantly lower in R and K groups in comparison to the C group and was significantly higher in K than R group at 3, 6, 12, and 24 h. In addition, the time to first rescue analgesic was significantly longer in R group (429 ± 54 min) than that in K group (272 ± 34 min), but compared to both groups, it was longer in C group (52 ± 7 min). In K group, the recovery time was longer with higher sedation score in comparison to the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Single retrobulbar injection and low-dose ketamine infusion are safe and effective when used as adjuvants to general anesthesia, but retrobulbar block provides better control of postoperative pain with prolonged time to first rescue analgesic and reduced analgesic consumption.

2.
Saudi J Anaesth ; 13(1): 52-59, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30692889

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The aim of this randomized controlled study is to compare the safety and efficacy of thoracic spinal versus thoracic epidural anesthesia for open nephrectomy in patients with obstructive/restrictive lung disease. METHODS: Sixty patients with mild to moderate chronic obstructive/restrictive lung disease undergoing open nephrectomy were randomized into two groups, 30 patients each. The thoracic spinal group (TSA) group received ultrasound guided mid-thoracic spinal anesthesia, and the thoracic epidural group (TEA) group received thoracic epidural anesthesia. All blocks were performed at the T7-T8. Hemodynamics, visual analogue scale score, sensory and motor block profile as well as any adverse events, and patient satisfaction were all reported. RESULTS: Both blocks were successfully performed and were effective for surgery in all patients, with the exception of only one patient in TSA group who needed to receive general anesthesia even after IV midazolam because of extreme anxiety and was excluded from the study analysis. The sensory block ranges were quiet close, with T2-T5 for the TSA group and T3-T6 for the TEA group as the upper level and L3-L5 as the same lower level. The values for the onset time and the duration of sensory and motor blocks were lower in TSA group. There were no statistically significant differences existed in intraoperative VAS, and hemodynamics between the two groups. Postoperative adverse effects were negligible and insignificant, with no case reporting any neurological sequel. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound guided thoracic spinal anesthesia can be performed safely and effectively for open nephrectomy in patients with obstructive/restrictive lung disease with the potential for an early ambulation and great patient satisfaction.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...