改良电休克治疗中丙泊酚与依托咪酯对照研究的系统评价

目的丙泊酚和依托咪酯是改良电休克治疗中广泛使用的两种麻醉药物,但两者对电抽搐发作指标的影响和不良反应均不同,故进行两种药物系统评价。方法检索PubMed、Embase、WOK、中国期刊网、万方、维普及中国生物医学文献等数据库,截止时间为2013年10月8日。应用随机临床试验报道的声明(CONSORT)为参照标准进行入组和评价文献,采用RevMan和STATA软件进行Meta分析。结果共检索到19项患者研究符合纳入标准。丙泊酚组抽搐发作时间短于依托咪酯组(Z=6.83,SMD=-1.207,P0.01)。两组抑制指数和苏醒时间差异无统计学意义。依托咪酯组躁动发生率明显高于丙泊酚组(Z=3.3,OR=0.135,P0.01),两组头痛、注射痛、尿失禁差异均无统计学意义。结论改良电休克治疗中丙泊酚与依托咪酯比较,前者抽搐发作时间短,后者躁动发生率高,两者对抽搐指数影响差异无统计学意义。     

Propofol versus methohexital in the surgery of the spinal canal

The aim of this study was to compare the quality of postanaesthetic recovery after anaesthesia with methohexitone (M) or with propofol (P). Thirty patients undergoing spinal surgery were randomly assigned to either group. The induction dose was 2 mg . kg-1 for both M and P. Anaesthesia was maintained by continuous infusion. The rate was 0.15 mg . kg-1 . min-1 for P and 0.07 mg . kg-1 . min-1 for M. Analgesia was obtained with fentanyl with the same doses in both groups. The maintenance doses were subsequently decreased by 50 and 75% of the initial values. This work compared the quality induction and the criteria of recovery (Aldrete score, Newman test). In two patients in each group, sensory evoked potentials (SEP) were recorded to monitor neurological integrity. The quality of induction was similar in both groups. Awakening was significantly more rapid in group P. The SEP were much decreased in group P, whilst there were few changes in group M. Monitoring of medullar integrity is mandatory in spinal surgery, requiring a rapid recovery. This objective was obtained with shorter delays in patients anaesthetized with propofol than in those who had received methohexitone. However, the former, at the doses used, seemed to depress the SEP.     

Comparison of methohexital and propofol for electroconvulsive therapy: effects on hemodynamic responses and seizure duration

Electroconvulsive therapy can produce severe disturbances in the cardiovascular system, most commonly a transient period of hypertension. This study was designed to determine whether propofol, in comparison with methohexital, would attenuate this hypertensive response. Fifteen patients were studied during courses of six ECT administrations, each patient receiving propofol or methohexital on different occasions. Arterial pressure, heart rate, and cardiac rhythm were recorded. The induction doses were 1.08 +/- 0.03 mg.kg-1 of methohexital, and 1.60 +/- 0.04 mg.kg-1 of propofol. Systolic pressure, diastolic pressure, and heart rate were consistently lower following propofol than methohexital (P less than 0.005). The mean maximum increase over baseline systolic pressure was 2.1 +/- 2.9 mmHg with propofol, and 26.7 +/- 4.5 mmHg with methohexital (P less than 0.001). Cardiac rhythm abnormalities were infrequent, and their incidence did not differ significantly between the two induction agents (P greater than 0.3). The duration of seizures, as measured clinically, was reduced with propofol (17.9 +/- 2.5 s) in comparison with methohexital (30.9 +/- 2.8 s) (P less than 0.001). Recovery times were similar for the two agents. Since the role of seizure duration in the therapeutic efficacy of ECT remains controversial, propofol may be a useful induction agent for this procedure.     

Sevoflurane versus propofol for induction of anaesthesia for electroconvulsive therapy: a randomized crossover trial

Propofol is often used to induce anaesthesia for electroconvulsive therapy. Some patients who receive propofol have fits of poor quality or inadequate duration despite increasing electroconvulsive therapy doses. Sevoflurane has been reported to exhibit pro-convulsant properties in some "at-risk" patients during anaesthesia for other procedures. The purpose of this study was to perform a randomized crossover trial in patients undergoing electroconvulsive therapy, comparing the effects on seizure parameters of propofol versus sevoflurane induction. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either sevoflurane or propofol for their first treatment. In the subsequent treatment the alternative agent was used. Patients in both treatment groups exhibited equally good fits, with those in the sevoflurane group having slightly better morphology, which is the most subjective of the parameters measured. The sevoflurane administrations were associated with slightly higher pulse rates and blood pressures. Sevoflurane provides a suitable alternative to propofol for anaesthesia in patients undergoing electroconvulsive therapy, although the slightly greater pulse rate rise and blood pressure rise should be considered in patients with ischaemic heart disease.     

Propofol and electroconvulsive therapy in a patient at risk from acute intermittent porphyria

A severely depressed 57-yr-old woman at risk from acute intermittent porphyria presented for a course of electroconvulsive therapy. With propofol as the induction agent the course of electroconvulsive therapy was both uneventful and successful.      

Phytotherapy versus hormonal therapy for postmenopausal bone loss: a meta-analysis

This meta-analysis included 14 randomized controlled trials involving 780 patients to compare phytotherapy with hormonal therapy in the treatment of postmenopausal bone loss. Current evidence suggests that phytotherapy may possess a similar effect on bone mineral density (BMD) values but clinically is not associated with a high incidence of uterine bleeding and breast pain as is hormonal therapy. Clinical trials indicate that phytotherapy may be a potential treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of phytotherapy with that of hormonal therapy, to assess the quality of phytotherapy trials, and to identify herbs used commonly in the treatment of postmenopausal bone loss. A total of 43 electronic databases were searched. The quality of eligible trials was assessed using Jadad’s scale. Outcome measures were BMD values and adverse events. Revman 5.0 software was used for data syntheses and meta-analyses. The database search revealed 14 randomized controlled trials involving 780 patients that met the inclusion criteria, and four trials were graded as high quality (score 3–5). There was no significant difference in lumbar, femoral or forearm BMD values between subjects treated with phytotherapy and those treated with hormonal therapy (P>0.05), but the incidence of uterine bleeding and breast pain was significantly lower in those treated with phytotherapy than in those treated with hormonal therapy (P = 0.002 and P = 0.01). The six most commonly used herbs in the included trials were identified. Phytotherapy may not show effects beyond hormonal therapy, but may be safer than hormonal therapy in the treatment of postmenopausal bone loss. Further trials with high-quality study designs should be conducted in this field.     

Anaesthesia for electroconvulsive therapy: a psychiatric viewpoint

Brief general anaesthesia has added to the safety and comfort of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). While usually a simple procedure, there are several areas in which ECT differs from other procedures requiring brief anaesthesia. These differences call for even more collaboration between psychiatrist and anaesthetist than is customary. This review details the areas where the anaesthetic management may affect the outcome of ECT for both an individual treatment and a treatment series. These include the patient evaluation, the patient preparation, the sequence and doses of anaesthetic agents, and the recovery period. Because each patient receives a series of treatments, an optimum regimen from both the psychiatric and anaesthetic standpoints can ultimately be achieved.     

Chevron osteotomy versus scarf osteotomy for hallux valgus correction: A meta-analysis

BackgroundThis study intended to investigate the optimal surgical strategy in hallux valgus (HV), and to provide a basis for clinical treatment of HV.MethodsStudies related to chevron osteotomy and scarf osteotomy for HV were enrolled from online databases. Hallux valgus angle (HVA) was the main outcome variable. Enrolled studies included posttreatment data for intermetatarsal angle (IMA), American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, and complications. A random-effects model was applied for significant heterogeneity. Otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used. Heterogeneity was assessed with Q test and I² statistics. Publication bias was evaluated with Egger's test. Based on the influence of weighted mean difference values or odds ratios, a sensitivity analysis was performed.ResultsFour studies including 384 subjects were evaluated to determine the optimal surgical strategy for HV. There was no statistically significant difference between chevron and scarf groups for HVA, IMA, AOFAS score, and complication rates. Sensitivity analysis showed good stability. The likelihood of publication bias was small.ConclusionThe effects of chevron osteotomy and scarf osteotomy for HV are comparable. Chevron osteotomy is less technically demanding.     

Neuromuscular blocking agents for electroconvulsive therapy: a systematic review

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is the transcutaneous application of small electrical stimuli to the brain to induce generalised seizures for the treatment of selected psychiatric disorders. The clinical indications for ECT as an effective therapeutic modality have been considerably expanded since its introduction. Anaesthesia and neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are required to ensure patients' safety during ECT. The optimal dose of muscle relaxant for ECT reduces muscle contractions without inducing complete paralysis. Slight residual motor convulsive activity is helpful in ascertaining that a seizure has occurred, while total paralysis prolongs the procedure unnecessarily. Suxamethonium is commonly used, but nondepolarising NMBAs are indicated in patients with certain comorbidities. In this review, we summarise current concepts of NMBA management for ECT.     

The use of nicardipine for electroconvulsive therapy: a dose-ranging study

A wide variety of vasoactive drugs have been used to treat the acute hypertensive response to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). We designed this randomized, double-blind, saline-controlled, crossover study to compare three different doses of nicardipine when administered before the ECT stimulus. Twenty-five patients undergoing a series of 4 ECT treatments received bolus injections of either saline or nicardipine 20, 40, or 80 mug/kg IV in a random sequence during a standardized methohexital (1 mg/kg) and succinylcholine (1 mg/kg) anesthetic technique. The mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and heart rate values were recorded at specific time intervals, as were the duration of seizure activity and the need for rescue labetalol. Both the 40 and 80 mug/kg doses of nicardipine reduced the percentage increase in MAP above the baseline value compared with the saline group (7% and 7% versus 30%, respectively). Nicardipine 40 and 80 mug/kg were also associated with a significant reduction in the need for labetalol (7 +/- 3 mg and 5 +/- 0 mg versus 22 +/- 10 mg in the saline group). Compared with the 40 mug/kg dose, nicardipine 80 mug/kg was associated with a more rapid heart rate at the time the ECT stimulus was applied. The 80 mug/kg dose was also associated with a reduced MAP value on awakening compared with the baseline value (91 +/- 12 mm Hg versus 102 +/- 8 mm Hg). We conclude that a bolus injection of nicardipine 40 mug/kg IV immediately before the ECT stimulus was optimal for controlling the acute hemodynamic response to ECT treatments.     

Anaesthesia for electroconvulsive therapy: a comparison of sevoflurane with propofol

This study was a prospective audit of patients receiving either intravenous induction of anaesthesia with propofol 2 mg/kg or inhalational induction using 8% sevoflurane for patients undergoing electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). All patients received inhaled 50% nitrous oxide. The anaesthetic agent was determined by psychiatrist preference. Each psychiatrist nominated only one induction technique for all his or her patients. Seventy treatments were studied in each group. Induction time was longer in the sevoflurane group. The time from commencing induction to loss of verbal contact was [mean (SD)] 64 (29.9) seconds for sevoflurane and 36 (33.6) seconds for propofol (P=0.001). Time to loss of eyelash reflex was 82 (32.6)s for sevoflurane and 44 (17.9)s for propofol (P<0.001). The duration of seizure activity was longer in sevoflurane patients, 35 (17.8)s, compared with 20 (9.8)s in the propofol group (P< 0.001). Discharge times were similar Minor adverse effects occurred in three patients, all in the sevoflurane group (one bradycardia and two episodes of post-procedural nausea). There were no major adverse events in either group. Propofol and sevoflurane both appear to be suitable agents for induction of anaesthesia for ECT.     

Reimplantation versus remodeling: a meta-analysis

Abstract Background: Reimplantation and remodeling procedure are two different techniques for valve–sparing aortic root surgery. A number of comparative series have been published but, to date, there has been no meta‐analysis comparing outcomes following the two techniques. Methods: This meta‐analysis was performed in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. A public domain database (MEDLINE) was searched to identify relevant series. Pooled risk ratios (RR) were calculated using fixed effects models for early (30‐day) mortality, late deaths, and reoperation related to moderate or severe aortic insufficiency (AI) during follow‐up. Results: The search identified seven eligible series, totaling 672 patients (367 reimplantation patents). There was no significant difference in early (30‐day) mortality (pooled RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.36 to 3.10; p = 0.92) and late deaths (pooled RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.87; p = 0.36) between reimplantation and remodeling groups. However, reimplantation technique has less chance for reoperation related to moderate or severe AI during follow‐up (pooled RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.92; p = 0.03). Conclusion: Comparing with remodeling, reimplantation technique has less chance for reoperation related to moderate or severe AI during long‐term follow‐up. (J Card Surg 2011;26:82‐87)     

Sevoflurane versus propofol for anesthetic induction: a meta-analysis

We performed this meta-analysis to compare the characteristics of sevoflurane and propofol for the induction of routine anesthesia and for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion. The variables assessed were 1) time to loss of consciousness, 2) incidence of apnea during induction, 3) induction complications, 4) time for successful LMA insertion, 5) success with LMA insertion on first attempt, 6) patient dissatisfaction, and 7) postoperative nausea and vomiting. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases between January 1992 and October 1999 were reviewed for randomized, controlled trials comparing anesthetic induction between sevoflurane/nitrous oxide and propofol. Data from the 12 randomized, controlled studies were used for the meta-analysis. Sevoflurane induction was associated with a trend toward higher patient dissatisfaction and higher first-time success with LMA. Apnea was less common in the sevoflurane group. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly more frequent in the sevoflurane group (P < 0.05). This effect was still present when all other variables, except the induction methods, were controlled. The other pooled variables did not show a significant difference between sevoflurane and propofol. Sevoflurane and propofol had similar efficacy for anesthetic induction. However, for routine outpatient surgery, propofol may still be the preferred induction anesthetic because of its favorable induction of anesthesia characteristics, high patient satisfaction, and less frequent incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. IMPLICATIONS: Sevoflurane and propofol had similar efficacy for anesthetic induction. However, for routine outpatient surgery, propofol may still be the preferred induction anesthetic because of its favorable induction of anesthesia characteristics, high patient satisfaction, and less frequent incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.     

Epidural ropivacaine versus bupivacaine for labor: a meta-analysis

Numerous studies have compared ropivacaine with bupivacaine for labor analgesia. Early studies suggested that obstetrical and some neonatal outcomes were improved when ropivacaine was used. We systematically reviewed and combined the results of the randomized controlled trials that compared ropivacaine with bupivacaine to determine whether or not there was a difference in these outcomes. We searched electronic databases and journals for randomized controlled trials composed of laboring parturients. The primary outcome was the incidence of spontaneous vaginal delivery. We examined other obstetrical, neonatal, and analgesic outcomes. Where possible, these were combined by using metaanalytic techniques and random effects modeling. We found 23 randomized controlled trials composed of 1043 patients receiving ropivacaine and 1031 receiving bupivacaine. There was no significant difference in the incidence of spontaneous vaginal delivery (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.41; P = 0.12) or any of the other outcomes. Although more studies reported a more frequent incidence of motor block with bupivacaine, the results were heterogeneous and therefore not combined. We conclude that there is no statistically significant difference between the two drugs in the incidence of any obstetrical or neonatal outcome. Further studies using clinically appropriate concentrations of drugs are required to determine whether or not there is a difference in the incidence of motor block. IMPLICATIONS: This metaanalysis of 23 randomized controlled trials shows that both ropivacaine and bupivacaine provide excellent labor analgesia. There was no significant difference between the two drugs in mode of delivery, maternal satisfaction, or neonatal outcomes. Whether or not there is a difference in motor block at clinically relevant doses is unresolved.     

Laparoscopic [correction of laproscopic] management of rectal injury during laparoscopic [correction of laproscopic] radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE: Rectal injury is a potential complication of radical prostatectomy. Because laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is still a challenging procedure, we review the incidence and management of rectal injury in 1,000 cases of consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of the first 1,000 laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomies performed between January 1998 and April 2002, 13 (1.3%) were complicated by rectal injury. Mean patient age was 66.5 years (range 58 to 76) and mean prostate specific antigen was 12.9 ng./ml. (range 2.9 to 26). Clinical stage was T1c, T2a and T2b in 5, 7 and 1 patient, respectively. Mean preoperative Gleason score was 5.8 (range 3 to 8). Once recognized the rectal defect was closed laparoscopically in 2 layers and tested for the absence of leakage. Broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics were given for 7 days. Oral liquids were started the day after surgery with a low residue diet, and a regular diet was started on postoperative day 5. Healing of the vesicourethral anastomosis was confirmed by voiding cystourethrogram on postoperative day 5. RESULTS: All patients underwent a non-nerve sparing procedure except 1 in whom unilateral neurovascular bundle preservation was done. Of 13 injuries 11 were diagnosed and repaired intraoperatively, and 2 were diagnosed postoperatively. Of the 11 cases of intraoperative diagnosis and repair 9 healed primarily without colostomy and peritonitis was diagnosed in the remaining 2 on days 3 and 4, respectively. Of the latter 2 patients 1 required repair of a small rectal defect without colostomy while the other required colostomy. Colostomy was performed in the 2 patients with delayed diagnosis on days 3 and 4 but even then a rectourethral fistula developed in 1, necessitating secondary repair. Average urethral catheterization time was 8.6 days for the 9 patients with an uneventful immediate postoperative course and mean hospital stay was 6.8 days. For the remaining 4 patients urethral catheterization duration was 12, 13, 15 and 120 days, and hospital stay was 7, 16, 21 and 27 days, respectively. There was no perioperative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Rectal injury during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy requires meticulous intraoperative repair in 2 layers, which allows primary healing without diversion colostomy. For injury prevention scrupulous attention is required during non-nerve sparing radical prostatectomy, particularly at the posterior surface of the prostatic apex.