Randomised double-blind comparative study of dexmedetomidine and tramadol for post-spinal anaesthesia shivering.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Dexmedetomidine (α2 adrenergic agonist) has been used for prevention of post anaesthesia shivering. Its use for the treatment of post-spinal anaesthesia shivering has not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy, haemodynamic and adverse effects of dexmedetomidine with those of tramadol, when used for control of post-spinal anaesthesia shivering. METHODS: A prospective, randomised, and double-blind study was conducted in 50 American Society of Anaesthesiologists Grade I and II patients of either gender, aged between 18 and 65 years, scheduled for various surgical procedures under spinal anaesthesia. The patients were randomised in two groups of 25 patients each to receive either dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg or tramadol 0.5 mg/kg as a slow intravenous bolus. Grade of shivering, onset of shivering, time for cessation of shivering, recurrence, response rate, and adverse effects were observed at scheduled intervals. Unpaired t-test was used for analysing the data. RESULTS: Time taken for cessation of shivering was significantly less with dexmedetomidine when compared to tramadol. Nausea and vomiting was observed only in tramadol group (28% and; 20% respectively). There was not much difference in the sedation profile of both the drugs. CONCLUSION: We conclude that although both drugs are effective, the time taken for cessation of shivering is less with dexmedetomidine when compared to tramadol. Moreover, dexmedetomidine has negligible adverse effects, whereas tramadol is associated with significant nausea and vomiting.

Airway management in maxillofacial trauma: do we really need tracheostomy/submental intubation.

BACKGROUND: There are various techniques available for airway management in patients with maxillofacial trauma. Patients with panfacial injuries may need surgical airway access like submental intubation or tracheostomy, which have their associated problems. We have been managing these types of cases by a novel technique, i.e, intraoperative change of nasotracheal to orotracheal intubation. AIM: To review our experience about various techniques for the airway management in patient with maxillofacial trauma. To analyse the possibility of using nasotracheal intubation and intraoperative change of nasotracheal to orotracheal intubation in panfacial fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a tertiary care centre four hundred eighty seven patients of maxillofacial injuries, operated over a period of 2 years were reviewed in relation to age, sex, mode of injury, type of facial fractures, methods of airway management and their associated complications. RESULTS: Young patients with male predominance is the most common affected population. Panfacial fracture is the most common type of injury (39.83%) among facial fractures. Airway was managed with intraoperative change of nasotracheal to orotracheal intubation in 33.05% of the patients whereas submental intubation or tracheostomy was done in 8.62% of the patients. CONCLUSION: Nasal route for endotracheal intubation is not a contraindication in the presence of nasal fractures, base of skull fractures and CSF leak. By changing the nasotracheal intubation to orotracheal intubation intraoperatively in cases panfacial fractures, most of the tracheostomies and submental intubations can be avoided.

Pain management after laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a randomized prospective trial of low pressure and standard pressure pneumoperitoneum.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal pain and shoulder tip pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy are distressing for the patient. Various causes of this pain are peritoneal stretching and diaphragmatic irritation by high intra-abdominal pressure caused by pneumoperitoneum . We designed a study to compare the post operative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy at low pressure (7-8 mm of Hg) and standard pressure technique (12-14 mm of Hg). Aim : To compare the effect of low pressure and standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in post laparoscopic cholecystectomy pain . Further to study the safety of low pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A prospective randomised double blind study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective randomised double blind study was done in 100 ASA grade I & II patients. They were divided into two groups -50 each. Group A patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with low pressure pneumoperitoneum (7-8 mm Hg) while group B underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with standard pressure pneumoperitoneum (12-13 mm Hg). Both the groups were compared for pain intensity, analgesic requirement and complications. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Demographic data and intraoperative complications were analysed using chi-square test. Frequency of pain, intensity of pain and analgesics consumption was compared by applying ANOVA test. RESULTS: Post-operative pain score was significantly less in low pressure group as compared to standard pressure group. Number of patients requiring rescue analgesic doses was more in standard pressure group . This was statistically significant. Also total analgesic consumption was more in standard pressure group. There was no difference in intraoperative complications. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the use of simple expedient of reducing the pressure of pneumoperitoneum to 8 mm results in reduction in both intensity and frequency of post-operative pain and hence early recovery and better outcome.This study also shows that low pressure technique is safe with comparable rate of intraoperative complications.

Mapleson's Breathing Systems.

Mapleson breathing systems are used for delivering oxygen and anaesthetic agents and to eliminate carbon dioxide during anaesthesia. They consist of different components: Fresh gas flow, reservoir bag, breathing tubes, expiratory valve, and patient connection. There are five basic types of Mapleson system: A, B, C, D and E depending upon the different arrangements of these components. Mapleson F was added later. For adults, Mapleson A is the circuit of choice for spontaneous respiration where as Mapleson D and its Bains modifications are best available circuits for controlled ventilation. For neonates and paediatric patients Mapleson E and F (Jackson Rees modification) are the best circuits. In this review article, we will discuss the structure of the circuits and functional analysis of various types of Mapleson systems and their advantages and disadvantages.