Propofol-ketamine vs propofol-fentanyl combinations for deep sedation and analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing burn dressing changes

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare propofol-ketamine (PK) and propofol-fentanyl (PF) combinations for deep sedation and analgesia in pediatric burn wound dressing changes. METHODS: Thirty-two ASA physical status II and III inpatients with a second degree total burn surface area ranging from 5% to 25% were studied in a randomized, double blind fashion. Heart rate, systolic arterial pressure, peripheral oxygen saturation, respiratory rate and Ramsey sedation scores of all patients were recorded perioperatively. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either PK or PF: PK group (n = 17) received 1 mg.kg(-1) ketamine + 1.2 mg.kg(-1) propofol, and PF group (n = 15) received 1 microg.kg(-1) fentanyl + 1.2 mg.kg(-1) propofol for induction. Additional propofol (0.5-1 mg.kg(-1)) was administered when the patients showed discomfort in both groups. If the patient showed discomfort and/or increase in heart rate or systolic arterial pressure, despite additional propofol dose, additional bolus of 0.5-1 mg.kg(-1) ketamine or 0.5-1 microg.kg(-1) fentanyl was administered. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in heart rate, systolic arterial pressure, peripheral oxygen saturation, respiratory rate and sedation scores during the procedure between the groups. Restlessness during the procedure was seen in seven (47%) patients in Group PF and one (5.9%) patient in Group PK (P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Both propofol-ketamine and propofol-fentanyl combinations provided effective sedation and analgesia during dressing changes in pediatric burn patients. But propofol-ketamine combination was superior to propofol-fentanyl combination because of more restlessness in patients given propofol-fentanyl.     

Prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting with oral, long-acting dimenhydrinate in gynecologic outpatient laparoscopy

Dimenhydrinate is an inexpensive antiemetic with few side effects available as an oral, long-acting (LA) formulation (Gravol L/A) containing 25 mg of immediate and 50 mg of sustained release drug. We designed this double-blind comparison trial to assess the efficacy of dimenhydrinate LA versus droperidol alone and the combination for prophylaxis of nausea, vomiting, and retching in outpatient gynecologic laparoscopy. One-hundred-forty-one women were randomized into 3 groups: 1) droperidol (placebo capsule preoperatively and IV droperidol 0.625 mg before induction), 2) dimenhydrinate LA preoperatively and IV placebo before induction, or 3) combination. Information regarding nausea, vomiting, retching, pain, and sedation was recorded in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and collected by telephone for the presence of symptoms: on arrival home; at bedtime; upon arising, and at lunchtime the following day. The overall incidence of complete treatment failure (rescue medication in PACU or nausea, vomiting, or retching at any time point) was 28 of 46 (61%), 28 of 48 (58%), and 22 of 47 (47%); and for treatment failure vomiting (rescue medication in PACU or vomiting or retching at any time point) was 16 of 46 (35%), 11 of 48 (23%), and 5 of 47 (11%), for the droperidol, dimenhydrinate, and combination groups, respectively (P = 0.007 for droperidol versus combination). There were no differences in sedation or pain. Preoperative administration of an oral dose of LA dimenhydrinate in combination with droperidol when compared with droperidol alone effectively reduced the incidence of vomiting but not nausea in women undergoing elective outpatient gynecologic laparoscopy. IMPLICATIONS: Dimenhydrinate is an inexpensive antiemetic with few side effects available as a long-acting oral formulation. Women undergoing outpatient gynecologic laparoscopy were given droperidol, an effective antiemetic, dimenhydrinate alone, or the combination of the two drugs. Dimenhydrinate plus droperidol significantly reduced the overall incidence of vomiting, but not nausea, when compared with droperidol alone.     

Day-case laparoscopy: a comparison of prophylactic opioid, NSAID or local anesthesia for postoperative analgesia

BACKGROUND: The study was aimed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy, postoperative comfort, recovery characteristics and side effects of three different analgesic agents administered prophylactically. METHODS: Eighty patients undergoing day-case minor operative laparoscopy were randomly allocated into four groups to receive tenoxicam 20 mg i.v. (Group T), fentanyl 100 microg i.v. (Group F), 5 ml of bupivacaine 2.5 mg/ml for infiltration of trocar sites (Group B), 30, 10 and 5 min before incision respectively. Bupivacaine, 35 ml, 2.5 mg/ml was also administered into the pelvic cavity in Group B. Group P received only placebo. Postoperative pain, analgesic requirements, first response to verbal stimulus, first analgesic requirement, ability to walk without help, to drink and to void, blood pressures, SpO2 and respiration rates were recorded in the PACU. Postoperative pain was evaluated by verbal rating scale. Pain scores, analgesic requirements and side effects were evaluated by telephone calls until the 48th postoperative hour. RESULTS: Postoperative pain scores were lower and time to requirement of rescue analgesics was longer in groups F and B compared to Group P. In the PACU, analgesic requirements were lower in Group B, compared to Group P. Nausea and vomiting were increased in Group F. CONCLUSION: Tenoxicam 20 mg i.v. was found to be ineffective whereas bupivacaine was superior to other groups in reducing pain and analgesic requirements. Bupivacaine also increased time to first analgesics and obtained better recovery characteristics, underlining its value in prophylactic pain management compared to the other two agents.     

Transdermal scopolamine reduces nausea and vomiting after outpatient laparoscopy

The authors evaluated the effect of transdermal scopolamine on the incidence of postoperative nausea, retching, and vomiting after outpatient laparoscopy in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. A Band-Aid-like patch containing either scopolamine or placebo was placed behind the ear the night before surgery. Anesthesia was induced with fentanyl (0.5-2 micrograms/kg iv), thiopental (3-5 mg/kg iv), and succinylcholine (1-1.5 mg/kg iv) and maintained with isoflurane (0.2-2%) and nitrous oxide (60%) in oxygen. Scopolamine-treated patients had less nausea, retching, and vomiting compared with placebo-treated patients (P = 0.0029). Severe nausea and/or vomiting was present in 62% of the placebo group but only 37% of those getting the scopolamine patch. Repeated episodes of retching and vomiting were also less frequent in the scopolamine group compared with the placebo group (23% vs. 41%; P = 0.0213) as was the need for additional antiemetic therapy (13% vs. 32%; P = 0.0013). Patients in the scopolamine group were also discharged from the hospital sooner (4 +/- 1.3 vs. 4.5 +/- 1.5 h; P = 0.0487). Side effects were more frequent among those patients treated with the scopolamine patch (91% vs. 45%; P less than 0.05) but were not troublesome. The authors conclude that transdermal scopolamine is a safe and effective antiemetic for outpatients undergoing laparoscopy.     

Atracurium versus vecuronium: a comparison of recovery in outpatient arthroscopy

Atracurium 0.5 mg.kg-1 and vecuronium 0.1 mg.kg-1 were compared as neuromuscular relaxants for outpatient arthroscopy of the knee under general anaesthesia. In 40 unpremedicated patients divided at random into two groups, anaesthesia was induced with methohexitone, atracurium (Group A) or vecuronium (Group B), three per cent isoflurane prior to intubation and 0.9 per cent during maintenance with nitrous oxide 66 per cent in oxygen. Neuromuscular function was recorded by a Datex Relaxograph. Recovery was assessed by the time the patients took to open their eyes, to be able to answer five questions correctly, the time to recovery of ocular balance (Maddox Wing test) and by comparing pre- and postoperative performance of a paper and pencil test (the p-deletion test). Recovery tests showed no significant differences between groups. After three hours all the patients were fit for discharge. The patients were interviewed one month after the procedure. All were satisfied with their anaesthetic. "Full recovery" took 1.5 days with a range of 1 h-7 days. The only significant difference (p less than 0.01) between the groups was the need for pharmacological reversal of residual paralysis. In a procedure with a mean duration of 45.6 minutes, and using isoflurane, all but one patient (95 per cent) in the atracurium group required neostigmine versus nine patients in the vecuronium group (45 per cent).     

The efficacy of ginger root in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after outpatient gynaecological laparoscopy

To determine the anti-emetic effect of ginger as compared to droperidol, 120 patients scheduled to have gynaecological diagnostic laparoscopy as day cases were randomly allocated into placebo, droperidol, ginger and ginger plus droperidol groups to receive either 2 g of ginger or 1.25 mg of droperidol or both. There were no significant differences in the incidences of postoperative nausea which were 32%, 20%, 22% and 33%, and vomiting which were 35%, 15%, 25% and 25% in the four groups, respectively. We conclude that ginger powder, in the dose of 2 g, droperidol 1.25 mg or both are ineffective in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting after day case gynaecological laparoscopy.     

Propofol versus thiamylal-enflurane anesthesia for outpatient laparoscopy.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether propofol anesthesia differs from thiamylal-enflurane anesthesia in induction characteristics, intraoperative hemodynamics, postoperative side effects, and postoperative psychomotor function recovery. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, two-group study. SETTING: A large university hospital with gynecologic outpatient operations performed in an integrated operating room suite. PATIENTS: Sixty adult women (ASA physical status I or II) undergoing an outpatient gynecologic laparoscopic operation with an anesthesia time of approximately 60 minutes. INTERVENTIONS: No pharmacologic premedication. Pretreatment with intravenous droperidol 0.6 mg and sufentanil 0.2 micrograms/kg before induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia was induced with either thiamylal 4 mg/kg (Group 1) or propofol 2.5 mg/kg (Group 2). Anesthesia was maintained with either nitrous oxide (N2O) and enflurane, 2-0.5% inspired concentrations; (Group 1) or with a continuous infusion of propofol 200-100 micrograms/kg/min and N2O (Group 2). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In psychomotor function tests (Trieger dot test and p-deletion test) administered preoperatively and postoperatively, no difference was found between the groups. No difference was found in induction time, although significantly more patients reported pain after the propofol injection, or in intraoperative hemodynamics (mean arterial pressure and heart rate). Immediate recovery time (emergence from anesthesia) and intermediate recovery time (ambulation, oral intake, and discharge time) were significantly shorter after propofol anesthesia. Fewer postoperative side effects, such as nausea and vomiting, were reported after propofol anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Induction and maintenance of anesthesia with propofol were comparable to those with thiamylal-enflurane, except patients experienced more pain on injection after propofol. Both immediate and intermediate recovery were more rapid after propofol anesthesia compared with enflurane-based anesthesia.     

A prospective, randomized comparison of dexketoprofen, ketoprofen or paracetamol for postoperative analgesia after outpatient knee arthroscopy

BACKGROUND: This prospective, randomized study was conducted to evaluate the quality of postoperative pain relief when using dexketoprofen, ketoprofen, or paracetamol after outpatient knee arthroscopy. METHODS: Without premedication, 45 ASA physical status I-II patients undergoing elective outpatient knee arthroscopy with combined sciatic-femoral nerve block, were randomly allocated to receive either 25 mg oral dexketoprofen (n = 15), 50 mg oral ketoprofen (n = 15), or 500 mg oral paracetamol (n = 15) before block placement. After completion of surgery the same pain medication was given according to standard protocols, while 50 mg oral tramadol were allowed as rescue analgesic if required by the patient. After standard discharge criteria had been fulfilled, patients were discharged from the day-surgery unit, while a telephone follow-up was performed the day after surgery using standard questionnaires evaluating the quality of pain relief during the first 24 hours after surgery. Total consumption of rescue tramadol, maximum pain complained of after hospital discharge, as well as the visual analogue scale of pain measured at hospital discharge were assessed by an independent trained observer. RESULTS: No differences in anthropometric variables, duration of surgical procedure, and fulfillment of discharge criteria were observed between the three groups. The degree of pain measured at rest at hospital discharge was similar in the three groups, while the VAS measured during motion was higher in patients receiving paracetamol (24 +/- 2.5 mm) than in those patients treated with dexketoprofen (13 +/- 6 mm) or ketoprofen (17 +/- 5 mm) (p = 0.016). Two patients (one in ketoprofen group and one in paracetamol group) required rescue tramadol after hospital discharge; however, no differences in maximum pain complained of after surgery or patient acceptance were observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, randomized study demonstrated that in outpatients receiving arthroscopic knee surgery, the use of 75 mg/day dexketoprofen was as effective and safe as 150 mg/day racemate ketoprofen, with a better pain relief during motion compared to 2 g/day paracetamol when patients were discharged from the day-surgery unit.     

Buprenorphine versus morphine. A comparison of intra-operative and postoperative analgesia

A randomised double-blind trial comparing morphine and buprenorphine and postoperative analgesia combined with droperidol was conducted in 60 patients. Compared with morphine, taken as the standard analgesic, buprenorphine was shown to be a satisfactory analgesic for major surgery, with no difference in the incidence of unwanted effects.     

A randomised controlled trial of intravenous versus inhalational analgesia during outpatient oocyte recovery

To compare the efficacy and acceptability of conventional intravenous sedation with patient-controlled inhalational isodesox, 57 women undergoing outpatient oocyte recovery were randomly allocated to receive isodesox by face mask, while 55 women were given intravenous fentanyl and midazolam. Women's satisfaction with pain relief, peroperative pain, clouding of memory and the surgeons' assessment of operating conditions were evaluated. Thirty-eight women in the inhalation group (67%) and 41 (75%) women in the intravenous group were 'very satisfied' with their analgesia (p = 0. 41). The mean (SD) pain score in women given isodesox was 46.8 (34. 7), while in the intravenous group it was 34.1 (21.3) (p = 0.02). Oxygen saturation levels < 94% were recorded in one woman using isodesox and in 16 (29%) women given intravenous analgesia. Despite higher pain scores, in comparison with the conventional analgesia, patient-controlled isodesox offers a safer method of pain relief with comparable satisfaction rates.     

A randomized double-blind comparison of epidural versus intravenous tramadol infusion for postoperative analgesia

BACKGROUND: This study compared epidural and intravenous tramadol infusions for postoperative analgesia after gastrectomy. METHODS: Twenty patients were assigned randomly to receive either tramadol epidurally and saline intravenously (group-E) or tramadol intravenously and saline, epidurally (group-I) in a double-blind fashion. At the end of the operation, each patient received a bolus of tramadol 2 mg x kg(-1) either epidurally or intravenously and 7 mg x kg(-1) x day(-1) tramadol infusion was begun via the same route. Concurrently, a saline bolus and its infusion were given via the alternate route. RESULTS: Both groups obtained adequate pain relief and there was no difference between the groups in pain score. But one patient in E-group was excluded from the study for respiratory depression 8 hours after the operation. No other side effects were detected in either group except mild nausea. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that intravenous tramadol infusion provides effective and safe postoperative analgesia. A futher examination is required for the suitable dose of tramadol in epidural infusion.     

The effect of propofol-ketamine anesthesia on hemodynamics and analgesia in comparison with propofol-fentanyl

Propofol (Diprivan), a modern intravenous hypnotic, produces a reduction in both cardiac index (CI) and mean arterial pressure (MAP). Ketamine (Ketanest), a potent analgesic, in contrast, causes an increase in MAP and CI. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the combination of propofol and ketamine can give better hemodynamic stability during the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia than propofol used with fentanyl, whose cardiodepressant actions may cumulate. METHODS. For induction of general anesthesia 10 patients (ASA I and II) each received 3-5 boluses of propofol (0.5 mg.kg-1 during 35 s until predetermined level of anesthesia was reached (stage D2/E0 according to [20]) followed by a continuous propofol infusion (0.120 mg.kg-1.min). Fentanyl 0.1 mg was administered to each patient in group A for induction of anesthesia and again if evident pain was present. In group B ketamine was given following a pharmacokinetic model based on computer-simulated calculation. After an initial bolus of 38 mg injected within 2 min further doses of 42 mg, 35 mg, 32 mg and 28 mg ketamine were administered over 30 min at a time. Signs of evident pain were treated by means of supplementary doses of 0.5 mg.kg-1. RESULTS. In both groups a moderate drop of MAP was observed after the induction of general anesthesia. Two patients in each group showed a distinct decrease in MAP (-32%). The heart rate dropped slightly (-9%) in group A, but did not change in group B. Following intubation the MAP rose by less in group A (+8%) than in group B (+21%). After the beginning of the operation the group treated with propofol/fentanyl showed major hemodynamic changes; in particular, bradycardia with less than 40 bpm was observed in more patients than in the propofol/ketamine group. Postoperatively, fewer patients in group B required rescue doses of analgesics (1 of 10) than these in group A (7 of 10), though vigilance was better in group B. DISCUSSION. The dose of ketamine administered during the induction of general anesthesia may have been not high enough to neutralize the cardiodepressant effect of propofol. But during the maintenance of anesthesia there was in fact better hemodynamic stability in group B than in group A as a result of the neutralization of opposing actions. Fentanyl even intensified the fall in MAP after propofol. Patients in group B showed better vigilance as well as better pain relief postoperatively. The population of the fentanyl group was obviously more deeply sedated and analgesia was still inadequate. In our study general intravenous anesthesia with propofol and ketamine offered the advantages of better analgesia, a higher state of vigilance and the absence of respiratory depression during the postoperative phase compared with the combination of propofol and fentanyl.     

Sublingual piroxicam for postoperative analgesia: preoperative versus postoperative administration: a randomized, double-blind study

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs have been used to obtain preemptive analgesia. We investigated, in this randomized, double-blind study, whether sublingual (s.l.) piroxicam given before was more effective than that given after surgery. Fifty-two patients scheduled for laparoscopic bilateral inguinal hernia repair under general anesthesia were enrolled. Group PRE (25 patients) received 40 mg of piroxicam s.l. 2 h before surgery and a placebo 10 min after surgery. Group POST (27 patients) were treated with a placebo 2 h before surgery and received 40 mg of piroxicam s.l. 10 min after surgery. After an initial dose of 100 mg tramadol IV, patient-controlled analgesia with tramadol was started and recorded. Visual analog scores were assessed in the recovery and at 6, 20, and 30 h postoperatively. Significantly lower visual analog scores were found in group PRE at 6 and 20 h. Significantly smaller cumulative tramadol consumption was observed after 30 h in group PRE. In summary, our findings suggest that preoperative s.l. piroxicam is more effective than the postoperative administration. Because of the low pain scores in both groups, the clinical relevance of these findings is not clear from this study.     

Selective spinal anesthesia versus desflurane anesthesia in short duration outpatient gynecological laparoscopy: a pharmacoeconomic comparison

We compared the cost and effectiveness of selective spinal anesthesia (SSA) with a desflurane-based general anesthetic (DES) for outpatient gynecological laparoscopy. A prospective analysis was undertaken of 10 patients randomized to receive SSA and compared with 10 patients randomized to receive DES. The groups were well matched in their demographic characteristics. The mean cost (in 2000 Canadian dollar values) of anesthesia supplies, drugs, and nursing for the SSA group of $62.31 was less than that for the DES group of $92.31 (P < 0.01). Recovery costs of both groups were similar. Time to administer anesthesia and time spent in the postanesthetic care unit were also similar. Postoperative analgesia was required by 50% of the DES group but in no patient receiving SSA (P < 0.01). SSA is a cost-effective alternative to DES in these patients. IMPLICATIONS: Small-dose spinal anesthesia is an effective alternative to a desflurane general anesthetic in terms of cost and recovery profiles in ambulatory gynecological laparoscopy.