Comparison of Two Different Sedation Protocols during Transvaginal Oocyte Retrieval: Effects on Propofol Consumption and IVF Outcome: A Prospective Cohort Study.

(1) Background: There has been various reports on the potential impact of anesthetic agents used during oocyte retrieval (OR) on the impairment of the capacity of the oocyte for fertilization and subsequent embryo quality; results have been conflicting; (2) Methods: The effects of two different sedation protocols during OR in two groups of patients undergoing In Vitro Fertilization/Intra-Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection IVF/ICSI, were compared on propofol consumption and on in vitro fertilization (IVF)/ICSI success. The study group received dexmedetomidine and fentanyl, while the control remifentanil and midazolam. In a prospective cohort study, we encompassed 72 cycles/patients. The administered dose of propofol per patient and fertilization rates were the primary outcomes, while anesthesiological parameters and IVF/ICSI outcomes were the secondary endpoints; (3) Results: We found a significant increase in propofol consumption in the study compared to the control group (77.0 ± 10.6 mg vs. 12.1 ± 6.1; p < 0.001), but fertilization rates were similar (p = 0.469). From the secondary anesthesiological outcomes, the post anesthesia discharge scores were better in the control group (15.0 (13.5 min) vs. 5.0 (10.0 min), p = 0.028). From the IVF/ICSI secondary outcome parameters, we found a higher quality of embryos on day three in the study compared to the control group (p = 0.040). The comparison of the other secondary outcomes yielded non-significant differences; (4) Conclusions: The use of dexmedetomidine, as an alternative agent during OR, was associated with higher propofol consumption as a rescue dose compared to remifentanil but was linked with similar fertilization rates and higher quality of embryos produced.

Major Lung Resections Using Manual Suturing Versus Staplers During Fiscal Crisis.

AbstractObjective: During fiscal crisis there was a period of shortage of staplers in our hospital, which drove us to manual suturing of bronchi and pulmonary vessels during major lung resections. We present our experience during that period in comparison to a subsequent period when staplers became available again. METHODS: A total of 256 lobectomies and 78 pneumonectomies were performed using manual suturing (group A), between September 2009 and September 2010, and compared regarding surgical outcome to 248 lobectomies and 60 pneumonectomies using staplers (group B), between September 2011 and September 2012. RESULTS: Although we did not observe statistically significant differences but only a trend towards less operative time, for both lobectomies (p=0.21) and pneumonectomies (p=0.31), we actually noted a 41 and 47 minutes saving of operative time using staplers (group B), in comparison to manual suturing (group A). We also observed a trend towards less morbidity rates in patients of group B, who underwent lobectomy (10.48%), and pneumonectomy (20%), versus patients of group A, who underwent lobectomy (15.62%), and pneumonectomy (30.76%); we did not observe any substantial differences in the other surgical outcome variables, and in patients' demographics comorbidities, and anatomic allocation of surgical procedures performed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of staplers offers safety with secure bronchial or vascular sealing, and saving of operative time. Their unavailability at an interval during fiscal crisis although it did not affect surgical outcome, revealed their usefulness and value.