RESUMO
Nowadays, the use of central venous catheter insertion (CVC), has abundantly increased. It is a common technique in critically ill patients who are admitted to intensive care and emergency departments in order to hemodynamic monitoring and fluid and medication administration. In this report, we express a 28-year-old man who has multiple trauma with decreased level of consciousness during a car accident three months ago and needs intensive care and monitoring by central venous catheter placing. A missed guide wire remaining inside the venous system after peripherally inserted in femoral vein that was incidentally diagnosed by taking a chest X-ray after three months. Although, guide wires are often retrieved by snaring catheter under fluoroscopic guidance and an interventional cardiologist, we have successfully extracted the lost wire through vascular surgery. Eventually, this report is supposed to increase awareness of this rare and preventable complication and to provide a solution to prevent this complication. Finally, the purpose of this report is to emphasize that surgical extracting is the best intervention to remove the missed guide wire (after 3 months) and this option could be developed, introduced and standardized in appropriate and controlled conditions.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: At present, laparoscopic surgery is a very common method, especially for the removal of the gallbladder, because pain and anxiety following surgery is a major problem in surgical operations. Various studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of gabapentin and dexmedetomidine in reducing pain intensity after surgery. The present study is aimed at examining the sedative and analgesic effects of gabapentin and dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: This was a double-blinded clinical trial involving 40 patients who were candidates for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The patients were randomly allotted in two groups of dexmedetomidine (n = 20) and gabapentin (n = 20). Then, pain intensity based on the visual analog scale (VAS) and sedation level based on the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) were measured at the curtained times. As the data were not normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze the data, and the significance level was set at 0.05. RESULTS: Across the follow-up points, more reduction in pain intensity was observed in the dexmedetomidine group as compared with the gabapentin group. The available dissimilarities between these two groups in pain decrement at the recovery room and 3 h after being discharged from the recovery room were not significant (P ≥ 0.414). In addition, across all the time points, there was considerable growth in sedation in the dexmedetomidine group in comparison with the gabapentin group (P < 0.024). This finding indicated that dexmedetomidine was more effective than gabapentin in creating sedation. CONCLUSION: Compared with gabapentin, dexmedetomidine leads to more pain reduction after surgery and better sedation during and after surgery.
