RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Donepezil is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor used to improve cognition and delay disease progression in dementia patients by increasing acetylcholine levels. This drug may potentially interact with neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) that act on muscular acetylcholine receptors during general anesthesia. Herein, we present a case of inadequate neuromuscular blockade with rocuronium, a nondepolarizing NMBA, in a dementia patient who had taken donepezil. CASE SUMMARY: A 71-year-old man was scheduled for laparoscopic gastrectomy. He had been taking donepezil 5 mg for dementia. General anesthesia was induced with propofol and remifentanil. The depth of neuromuscular blockade was monitored by train-of-four (TOF) stimulation. After the administration of rocuronium, the TOF ratio decreased at an unusually slow rate, and a TOF count of 0 was detected 7 min later. After intubation, a TOF count of 1 was detected within 1 min, and a TOF ratio of 12% was detected within 2 min. The TOF count remained at 4 even with an additional bolus and continuous infusion of rocuronium, suggesting resistance to this NMBA. Instead of propofol, an inhalation anesthetic was administered alongside another NMBA (cisatracurium). Then, the quality of neuromuscular blockade improved, and the TOF count remained at 0-1 for the next 70 min. No further problems were encountered with respect to surgery or anesthesia. CONCLUSION: Donepezil may be responsible for inadequate neuromuscular blockade during anesthesia, especially when total intravenous anesthesia is used.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Medical doctors who perform C-arm fluoroscopy-guided procedures are exposed to X-ray radiation. Therefore, radiation-protective shields are recommended to protect these doctors from radiation. For the past several years, these protective shields have sometimes been used without regular inspection. The aim of this study was to investigate the degree of damage to radiation-protective shields in the operating room. METHODS: This study investigated 98 radiation-protective shields in the operation rooms of Konkuk University Medical Center and Jeju National University Hospital. We examined whether these shields were damaged or not with the unaided eye and by fluoroscopy. RESULTS: There were seventy-one aprons and twenty-seven thyroid protectors in the two university hospitals. Fourteen aprons (19.7%) were damaged, whereas no thyroid protectors (0%) were. Of the twenty-six aprons, which have been used since 2005, eleven (42.3%) were damaged. Of the ten aprons, which have been used since 2008, none (0%) was damaged. Of the twenty-three aprons that have been used since 2009, two (8.7%) of them were damaged. Of the eight aprons used since 2010, one (12.3%) was damaged. Of the four aprons used since 2011, none (0%) of them were damaged. The most common site of damage to the radiation-protective shields was at the waist of the aprons (51%). CONCLUSIONS: As a result, aprons that have been used for a long period of time can have a higher risk of damage. Radiation-protective shields should be inspected regularly and exchanged for new products for the safety of medical workers.
