Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Artigo | WPRIM (Pacífico Ocidental) | ID: wpr-830293

RESUMO

Background@#Intravenous dexmedetomidine has been reported to potentiate the anesthetic effect of local anesthetics and improve the quality of postoperative analgesia when used as an adjuvant in neuraxial block. We compared the effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine and midazolam for sedation on combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anesthesia. @*Methods@#This study included 50 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. CSE anesthesia was given using 10 mg bupivacaine for all patients. After checking the maximum sensory and motor levels, the patients were randomly allocated into two groups of 25 each to receive intravenous continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine (Group D) or midazolam (Group M) for sedation during surgery. Regression block level, hemodynamic changes, and sedation score were compared between the groups when the patients entered the postanesthetic care unit (PACU). For patient-controlled epidural analgesia, 0.2% levobupivacaine with 650 μg of fentanyl (150 ml in total) was infused at a rate of 1 ml/h, in addition to a 3-ml bolus dose with a 30-min lockout time. The visual analogue scale scores, additional analgesic demand, patient satisfaction, and adverse events between the two groups were also compared postoperatively. @*Results@#A significant difference was observed in relation to the sensory block level in the PACU (Group D: 6.3 ± 2.1; Group M: 3.2 ± 1.9) (P = 0.002). The motor block level and other outcomes showed no significant intergroup differences. @*Conclusions@#Intravenous injection of dexmedetomidine, rather than midazolam, for procedural sedation is associated with prolonged sensory block, with comparable incidences of adverse events during CSE anesthesia.

2.
Artigo | WPRIM (Pacífico Ocidental) | ID: wpr-830292

RESUMO

Background@#Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome (WHS) includes features such as growth restriction, mental retardation, congenital heart disease, convulsions as well as microcephaly and micrognathia. Thus, the anesthesiologists may have difficulties in airway management, neuromuscular relaxation, and in maintaining hemodynamic stability.Case: A 24-year-old man with WHS underwent surgery for closed reduction and internal fixation of the right neck of femur. His face showed features typical of patients with WHS such as a prominent glabella, hypertelorism, micrognathia, low-set malformed ears, and a down-turned mouth. Since difficult airway management was expected, a video-assisted laryngoscope was used for successful intubation. The surgery terminated without any problems under total intravenous anesthesia. @*Conclusions@#A patient with WHS may have a variety of problems. Therefore, through careful evaluation of the airway, cardiovascular system, and cerebral nervous system and by making an appropriate anesthetic plan, anesthesiologists can perform a safe general anesthesia in patients with WHS.

3.
Artigo em Inglês | WPRIM (Pacífico Ocidental) | ID: wpr-742207

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: It is uncommon for patients who have received a permanent implant to remove the spinal cord stimulator (SCS) after discontinuation of medication in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) due to their completely painless state. This study evaluated CRPS patients who successfully removed their SCSs. METHODS: This 10-year retrospective study was performed on patients who had received the permanent implantation of an SCS and had removed it 6 months after discontinuation of stimulation, while halting all medications for neuropathic pain. Age, sex, duration of implantation, site and type of CRPS, and their return to work were compared between the removal and non-removal groups. RESULTS: Five (12.5%, M/F = 4/1) of 40 patients (M/F = 33/7) successfully removed the permanent implant. The mean age was younger in the removal group (27.2 ± 6.4 vs. 43.5 ± 10.7 years, P < 0.01). The mean duration of implantation in the removal group was 34.4 ± 18.2 months. Two of 15 patients (13.3%) and 3 of 25 patients (12%) who had upper and lower extremity pain, respectively, had removed the implant. The implants could be removed in 5 of 27 patients (18.5%) with CRPS type 1 (P < 0.01). All 5 patients (100%) who removed their SCS returned to work, while only 5 of 35 (14.3%) in the non-removal group did (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Even though this study had limited data, younger patients with CRPS type 1 could remove their SCSs within a 5-year period and return to work with complete pain relief.


Assuntos
Humanos , Fatores Etários , Remoção de Dispositivo , Extremidades , Extremidade Inferior , Neuralgia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Retorno ao Trabalho , Estimulação da Medula Espinal , Medula Espinal
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...