Nitrous oxide does not aggravate postoperative emesis after orthognathic surgery in female and nonsmoking patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of supplemental nitrous oxide on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after propofol anesthesia for orthognathic surgery in female and nonsmoking patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared PONV in 28 ASA-I female nonsmoking patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. Anesthesia was induced with propofol combined with fentanyl, and tracheal intubation was facilitated with vecuronium. Anesthesia was maintained with propofol with or without nitrous oxide. No patient received neostigmine. PONV was assessed as score 0 (no PONV), score 1 (nausea), and score 2 (vomiting) during the 24-hour recovery period. RESULTS: There were no differences in the patients' characteristics, operation, anesthesia and emergence time, fluid transfusion, blood loss, urine output, and total propofol and fentanyl doses between the 2 groups. There was also no difference in PONV score in 2 groups. Only 1 patient in each group vomited. CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested that supplemental nitrous oxide does not aggravate PONV after propofol anesthesia for orthognathic surgery in female nonsmoking patients.     

日间全麻下儿童口腔治疗后恢复及影响因素研究

目的:探讨日间全麻下儿童口腔治疗后恢复情况及相关影响因素.方法:日间全麻下口腔治疗患儿418例,年龄2～6岁,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级.采用咽喉疼痛、咳嗽、声音嘶哑评分系统及术后恢复质量量表评价麻醉后24 h恢复情况.选择性别、年龄、麻醉时长、治疗牙齿数、七氟醚用量作为麻醉后24 h可能影响恢复因素进行分析.性别分为男、女两...     

The effect of preoperative ondansetron on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing outpatient dentoalveolar surgery and general anesthesia.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the efficacy of ondansetron in controlling postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) when used prophylactically in patients undergoing routine dentoalveolar surgery performed under general anesthesia. PATIENT AND METHODS: This was a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled evaluation. Fifty adult ASA I or II patients, requiring routine dentoalveolar surgery performed under general anesthesia, without a prior history of PONV, were randomly assigned to the experimental or control groups. Ondansetron (2.0 mL = 4.0 mg) or normal saline (2.0 mL) were administered intravenously before surgery. Age, gender, type of surgery, duration of surgery, anesthetic dosages, and PONV were evaluated. PONV was evaluated at time 0 (end of anesthesia) and at 30 and 60 minutes postoperatively. Nausea was evaluated using a visual analog scale (1, not nauseous; 5, about to vomit). Vomiting was assessed as a yes or no response. At 20 to 28 hours postoperatively, PONV was evaluated via a telephone call as a yes or no response, along with the number of episodes of nausea, vomiting, or both. Means and standard deviations were calculated for age, surgery, and anesthetics, and differences were assessed using an independent samples t-test. Differences for gender between the control and experimental groups were tested by a nonparametric chi-squared test. Differences between groups for nausea and vomiting were tested with a continuity correction chi-squared test. Differences were considered significant for a P < .05. RESULTS: No significant differences (P < .05) were found between the PONV groups for gender, duration of procedure, or anesthetic dosages. Statistically significant differences were noted in age and the type of surgical procedures performed. No statistically significant differences (P < .05) were noted between groups for nausea or vomiting. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this study, PONV occurred in approximately 20% of patients (20% for nausea, 8% for vomiting). With the types of anesthetic agents and techniques used in this investigation, there were no significant differences between ondansetron and placebo for prophylaxis against PONV.     

Small dose of propofol for preventing nausea and vomiting after third molar extraction.

PURPOSE: The study goal was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a small dose of propofol for the prevention of nausea and vomiting following third molar extraction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, 90 women received placebo or propofol at 2 different doses (0.25 mg/kg, 0.5 mg/kg) (n = 30 of each) intravenously at the end of surgery. A standard general anesthetic technique, including sevoflurane and nitrous oxide in oxygen, was employed throughout the surgical procedure. Emetic episodes and safety assessments were performed during 0 to 3 hours and 3 to 24 hours after after anesthesia. RESULTS: The rate of patients experiencing emesis-free (no nausea, retching, or vomiting) during 0 to 3 hours after anesthesia was 60% with placebo, 66% with propofol 0.25 mg/kg (P =.395), and 90% with propofol 0.5 mg/kg (P =.001); the corresponding rate during 3 to 24 hours after anesthesia was 60%, 63% (P = 0.5), and 87% (P =.02) (P values compared with placebo). No clinically serious adverse effects due to the study drug were observed in any group. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic therapy with a small dose (0.5 mg/kg) of propofol is effective for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in female patients undergoing general anesthesia for third molar extractions.     

Predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery

A common predictive measure of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is the Apfel score. Although tested in many different operations, it has not been tested extensively in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS). This study was designed to determine whether it applied to OMFS and whether there were other factors in this population that would improve its accuracy. A retrospective chart review was carried out on a randomly selected group of patients who had OMFS during a 10-month period. In addition to the Apfel score risk factors, PONV data were collected in relation to type of anesthetic induction and maintenance, type of surgery, use of maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), use of opioids, and anesthesia and surgery times. One-hundred and sixty-seven patients were included in the analysis; 24% had nausea and 11% had nausea and vomiting. Patients who had orthognathic or temporomandibular joint surgery had the highest rate of PONV. Young age, anesthesia and operation time, and use of MMF were also associated with increased PONV. Adding age, MMF or limited postoperative mouth opening, and surgery type to the Apfel score should make it more predictive in OMFS.     

Comparison of the effect of 2 hypotensive anesthetic techniques on early recovery complications after orthognathic surgery

The aim of this study was to evaluate the recovery complications following the use of 2 anesthetic protocols in orthognathic surgery, namely, propofol with remifentanil and isoflurane with remifentanil. Sixty-two patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I were selected. All underwent bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. Propofol with remifentanil was used as an anesthesia in group 1 (n = 32), and isoflurane with remifentanil was used in the patients in group 2 (n = 30). Early recovery complications consisting of pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), shivering, and agitation were evaluated and documented. The length of the operation and duration of recovery were documented for all patients. Analysis of the data demonstrated no relationship between age and recovery time (P > 0.05). Analysis of data with χ(2) and independent t-tests did not show any difference between the 2 groups with regard to pain, agitation, PONV, and shivering (P > 0.05). Logistic regression was used to evaluate the effect of the operation time on recovery complications. The analysis showed that pain and PONV were significantly higher in those who experienced a longer operation time. With increasing operation time longer than 165 minutes, 64% of patients experienced pain, and 89% of them had PONV. General anesthesia can be provided via intravenously administered medications and/or inhaled volatile anesthetics. No significant difference in early recovery time was found in patients when either isoflurane or propofol was used to maintain the anesthesia. However, the length of the operation played a major role in increasing early recovery complications.     

Propofol based total intravenous anesthesia versus sevoflurane based inhalation anesthesia: The postoperative characteristics in oral and maxillofacial surgery

ObjectiveTotal intravenous anesthesia and inhalation/volatile anesthesia are the main general anesthesia procedures used in all surgical applications. The aim of this study was to compare sevoflurane anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia with propofol in terms of postoperative complications, especially after oral and maxillofacial surgeries.Material and methodsEach patient was taken to the recovery room following extubation, and the pulse rate, non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) and oxygen saturation were monitored. Presence of hypoxia, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypertension and hypotension were determined as vital sign complications.ResultsThe risk of complications related to vital functions were low for both anesthesia methods, and no statistically significant difference between the groups. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was found to be significantly higher in the patients undergoing both major (p = 0.011) and minor (p = 0.021) surgeries in the IA-S group. The recovery time was found to be significantly longer in the TIVA-P group compared to the IA-S group in the patients undergoing both major (p = 0.026) and minor surgery (p = 0.018).ConclusionTIVA and IA methods, which are considered safe in terms of vital signs, should be preferred according to patient characteristics. Despite the fact that inhaled anesthetics require PONV premedication for long term interventions, we believe that they could be preferred due to shorter recovery time compared to intravenous anesthetics.     

Propofol alone and combined with dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adult Japanese patients having third molars extracted

We did a prospective, randomised, double-blind study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a small dose of propofol alone, and propofol combined with dexamethasone, for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adult Japanese patients listed for third molars extractions. One hundred and twenty patients, 55 men and 65 women aged 17-48 years, were given placebo, propofol 0.5mg/kg, or propofol 0.5mg/kg plus dexamethasone 8 mg intravenously at the end of the operation. A standard general anaesthestic was used, including sevoflurane and nitrous oxide in oxygen. Patients' characteristics were comparable in all three groups. The numbers of patients who developed postoperative nausea and vomiting during the 24h after anaesthesia were 8 with propofol (p=0.04), 2 with propofol plus dexamethasone (p=0.001), and 16 with placebo. The antiemetic efficacy of propofol combined with dexamethasone was superior to that of propofol alone (p=0.04). There were no clinically important adverse events. We conclude that a small dose (0.5mg/kg) of propofol combined with dexamethasone 8 mg was more effective than propofol alone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adult Japanese patients having general anaesthesia for extractions of third molars.     

Postoperative Morbidities Following Dental Care Under Day-Stay General Anesthesia in Intellectually Disabled Children

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the postoperative morbidities for 24 hours following dental care under day-stay general anesthesia using sevoflurane or halothane in intellectually disabled children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-six premedicated patients with intellectual disabilities underwent general anesthesia for their dental treatment. They were randomly given anesthesia maintained with sevoflurane (2% to 3%) or halothane (1% to 1.5%) after receiving inhalation induction either with sevoflurane (8%) or halothane (5%) and nitrous oxide in oxygen (50:50). The patients' age, gender, weight, ASA Class, type of dental treatment, and duration of anesthesia and operation were recorded as well as the time required for recovery (Aldrete Scale) and the length of time taken before they were discharged (postanesthetic discharge scoring system) from the hospital. Pain and agitation were recorded using a visual analog scale (0 to 10). Other postoperative morbidities, which include crying, nausea and vomiting, bleeding, and drowsiness, were also noted for 24 hours after the operation. RESULTS: The most common morbidities during the postoperative 24 hours were agitation and pain, and their occurrence was significantly more common in the sevoflurane group than in the halothane group (P < .05). The recovery time was shorter in the sevoflurane group, but it was not statistically significant. There was no difference between the groups in the discharge time. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from more postoperative agitation and pain after awakening from sevoflurane, the quality of recovery was similar for both sevoflurane and halothane.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after orthognathic surgery: a retrospective study and literature review.

PURPOSE: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is the most common postoperative complication after surgery and general anesthesia. PONV occurs primarily within the first 24 hours and can lead to significant morbidity, delayed hospital discharge, increased hospital costs and perhaps most importantly, poor patient satisfaction. We sought, in this study, to determine the prevalence of PONV and to identify risk factors in patients who underwent orthognathic surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analytic survey of 553 consecutive patients over 14 years of age, who underwent maxillary and/or mandibular osteotomies at Kaiser Permanente Hospital (Oakland, CA), between January 2003 and March 2004. Patient-, anesthesia- and surgery-related factors that were considered to have a possible effect on the prevalence of PONV events were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 514 patients met the inclusion criteria. Among these patients, 40.08% experienced PONV during the first 24 hours after surgery. The most important predictive factors associated with an increased risk of PONV were female gender, young patients (15 to 25 years old), nonsmoking status, presence of predisposing factors (ie, prior history of motion sickness and/or PONV, vertigo or migraine headaches), use of volatile general anesthetics, maxillary surgery, postoperative pain level (PACU) and the use of postoperative analgesic opioid drugs. We found a directly proportional relationship between the number of risk factors and the prevalence of PONV. CONCLUSION: We found PONV had a high prevalence among patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. Further studies are needed to develop effective protocols for preventing this common and unpleasant problem.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting after oral and maxillofacial surgery: a prospective study

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most unpleasant experiences after surgery. It reduces patient satisfaction and also increases hospital costs due to longer hospitalizations. The aim of this prospective study was to determine whether orthognathic surgery is associated with more PONV than less invasive maxillofacial surgery. Three hundred and eight patients aged 8–87 years who underwent maxillofacial surgery were included. The PONV score, based on the Apfel score, was calculated preoperatively. PONV occurred in 142 (46.1%) patients during the first three postoperative days; these patients were further categorized as having postoperative nausea (PON) and/or postoperative vomiting (POV). PON was most frequent after orthognathic surgery to the mandible (75%), and POV was most frequent after maxillary surgery, including bimaxillary surgery, Le Fort I osteotomy, and surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion (SARPE) (43.1%). There was a small significant relationship between the preoperative PONV score and the incidence of PONV: patients experienced more PONV when the PONV score calculated preoperatively was higher. The incidence of PONV after orthognathic surgery was very high compared with the incidence after dental extractions and other minor surgeries. Further investigation is required to establish a strategy to reduce PONV after orthognathic surgery.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting after surgery for prognathism: not only a question of patients' comfort. A placebo-controlled comparison of dolasetron and droperidol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of dolasetron and droperidol (DHB) for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing surgery for prognathism. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, the efficacy of 12.5 mg dolasetron i.v. and 1.25 mg DHB was evaluated in preventing PONV in 83 patients undergoing surgery for prognathism. Patients were allocated randomly to one of three groups: group A (n=27) received 12.5 mg dolasetron intravenously (i.v.), group B (n=27) received 1.25 mg DHB i.v. and placebo group C (n=29) received saline 0.9%. If patients complained of retching or vomiting or if patients demanded antiemetics, 20mg metoclopramide (MCP) i.v. was given. Postoperative nausea, postoperative vomiting, or nausea and vomiting was assessed in the postoperative period at 0-4 h and overall between 0 and 24 h. RESULTS: A significant reduction in the incidence of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting was observed in the dolasetron group (33%) when compared with DHB (81%) and placebo (86%) treated patients. No other significant differences between the DHB and the placebo group were found. Dolasetron (11%) significantly reduced vomiting in comparison with the DHB (52%) and placebo group (52%). The use of postoperative MCP per patient was significantly lower in the dolasetron group when compared with both other groups. Dolasetron significantly reduced the postoperative nausea and/or vomiting-score when compared with both other groups. There was no significant difference between DHB- and placebo-treated patients with regard to nausea and/or vomiting. CONCLUSION: Intravenous dolasetron (12.5 mg) is more effective than either intravenous DHB (1.25 mg) or placebo for preventing PONV after surgery for prognathism. It also was significantly superior to either DHB or placebo concerning nausea and vomiting and the need for MCP rescue medication.     

The benefit of bilateral inferior alveolar nerve block in managing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after mandibular osteotomy

IntroductionThe purpose of our study was to evaluate the benefit of bilateral inferior alveolar nerve block (BIANB) in managing postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting and opioid and antiemetic consumption in mandibular osteotomy.Material and methods51 patients operated for bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) were included in this prospective randomized controlled, double-blind, superiority trial.In the first group (n = 25), standard protocol was applied (general anesthesia and postoperative multimodal analgesia). The second group (n = 26) received bilateral inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia at the start of surgery in addition to routine protocol. Postoperative monitoring was conducted every 4 h over the first 24 h and targeted the following criteria: postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, consumption of morphine (cumulative dose) and antiemetic agents, need for removal of guiding elastics.ResultsPONV was significantly lower in the BIANB group (15.4 % VS 40 %, p = 0.049), as were mean VAS scores for pain (1 VS 1.57, p = 0.045) and medians of morphine bolus (8 [6–16] VS 5.5 [1–8], p = 0.033). We found no significant difference in incidence of guiding elastic removal, and antiemetic consumption.DiscussionThe use of BIANB in BSSO improved postoperative patient comfort in terms of PONV and pain. Furthermore, it led to a decrease in opioid consumption. In conclusion, it is an additional therapeutic means of improving patients' postoperative comfort.     

Benefits of the enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for orthognathic surgery

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol was designed to improve patient outcomes and decrease complications, opioid use, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to examine the effectiveness of ERAS protocols implemented in orthognathic surgeries from 2017 to 2018 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital by measuring opioid use and PONV. Two groups were identified through chart review, a non-ERAS group (traditional) of patients who had surgery without a protocol and an ERAS group of patients who had surgery with the ERAS protocol. The anesthesia and surgical teams followed a standardized protocol for perioperative management. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon and included single- and double-jaw surgeries and adjunctive procedures. The patient charts were analyzed for postoperative opioid consumption (measured in morphine milligram equivalents, MME) and PONV. IBM SPSS Statistics version 26 was used to conduct the statistical analyses. The ERAS group received less opioids during the postoperative period than the control group (31.2 MME vs 54.6 MME, P =  0.002). The ERAS group also had a lower incidence of PONV, with 1.2 episodes of PONV compared to 2.4 episodes in the non-ERAS group (P =  0.008). This study demonstrates that the ERAS protocol is effective in decreasing postoperative opioid consumption and PONV.     

托烷司琼对口腔颌面外科术后带管患者恶心、呕吐的预防作用

目的:探讨盐酸托烷司琼用于预防口腔颌面外科手术后带气管导管(以下简称为带管)患者恶心、呕吐的效果.方法:120例全麻下择期行口腔颌面外科手术患者,ASA评分Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,术前无恶心、呕吐,无胃肠疾病,术前24h未用任何抗呕吐药物,术毕苏醒后均带管人SICU.所有患者均无手术及麻醉史.对药物过敏,有精神性恶心、呕吐者除外.以随机双盲法将患者分为A、B、C、D、E、F 6组,每组20例.A为对照组,不使用盐酸托烷司琼;B组在手术结束即刻静脉推注盐酸托烷司琼2.5mg;C组在手术结束即刻静脉推注盐酸托烷司琼5mg;D组只在自控静脉镇痛泵(PCIA)中加盐酸托烷司琼2.5mg;E组只在PCIA泵中加盐酸托烷司琼5mg;F组在手术结束即刻静脉推注盐酸托烷司琼2.5mg,同时在PCIA泵中加盐酸托烷司琼2.5mg.采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS).对术后12、24、48h镇痛评分;采用4级评分法对恶心、呕吐评分.采用SPSS11.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析.结果:各组均有恶心、呕吐患者,但其发生率及程度不同,A组恶心、呕吐发生例数显著高于其余5组(P<0.05).F组恶心、呕吐发生率以及程度显著低于A、B、C、D组(P<0.05).各组患者术后镇痛评分(VAS)无显著性差异(P>0.05).结论:静脉注射盐酸托烷司琼能有效降低口腔颌面外科手术后带管患者恶心、呕吐的发生率,而且持续泵入给药较单次静脉给药效果更确切.     

戊乙奎醚和托烷司琼联合用药对口腔颌面外科术后恶心呕吐的防治作用

目的:寻找一种对口腔颌面外科术后恶心呕吐有更强防治作用的方法。方法:40例口腔颌面外科手术患者术前用阿托品、手术结束用托烷司琼为A+T组;另40例术前用戊乙奎醚、手术结束用托烷司琼为P+T组。结果:麻醉恢复期24 h内,恶心VAS评分,A+T组高于P+T组(P<0.05);呕吐百分比A+T组明显高于P+T组(P<0.05)。结论:口腔颌面外科手术患者,术前戊乙奎醚、术后托烷司琼的联合用药,能更好地防治术后恶心呕吐。     

雷莫司琼和托烷司琼预防口腔颌面外科术后恶心、呕吐的疗效观察

目的:比较雷莫司琼和托烷司琼预防口腔颌面外科术后恶心、呕吐的效果。方法:选择120例ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级择期行口腔颌面外科手术的患者,随机分为3组,在麻醉诱导前静脉注射雷莫司琼(R组,n=40)0.3mg、托烷司琼(T组,n=40)5mg、生理盐水(对照组,C组,n=40)5mL。观察术后24h内恶心、呕吐的发生情况,采用SPSS 11.0软件包对数据进行χ2检验。结果:术后24h内,恶心、呕吐的发生率R组和T组显著低于C组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),R组和T组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:雷莫司琼和托烷司琼均可显著减少术后恶心、呕吐的发生率,两者疗效相当。     

右美托咪定复合罗哌卡因局部浸润对颞下颌关节术后疼痛及恶心呕吐的影响

目的探讨右美托咪定复合罗哌卡因用于成年女性患者颞下颌关节手术局部浸润麻醉对术后疼痛及恶心呕吐的影响。 方法选取深圳市口腔医院2021年1—12月进行颞下颌关节手术的18~43岁女性患者75例,按随机数字表法分为研究组（38例）和对照组（37例）。在全身麻醉插管后,研究组采用0.5%罗哌卡因20 mL+2.0 μg/kg右美托咪定2 mL,对照组采用0.5%罗哌卡因20 mL+0.9%氯化钠溶液2 mL于术区进行局部浸润麻醉。记录两组患者主要结局指标：术后恶心呕吐（PONV）情况及频率;次要结局指标：术后4、8和24 h视觉模拟评分（VAS）值、镇痛泵有效按压次数和相应时间血流动力学指标,采用SPSS 22.0软件进行两独立样本t检验以及Fisher′s精确检验对比分析。 结果（1）呕吐情况：研究组轻于对照组。研究组呕吐率（13.2%）低于对照组（40.5%）,差异有统计学意义（χ² = 7.188,P = 0.007）;研究组呕吐次数[（0.18 ± 0.56）次]低于对照组[（1.60 ± 2.46）次],差异有统计学意义（t = -3.451,P = 0.001）。（2）术后VAS值比较：研究组术后4、8和24 h的VAS值分别为（2.1 ± 0.9）、（2.3 ± 0.6）和（1.5 ± 0.6）,均低于对照组（3.1 ± 0.8、4.7 ± 0.8和2.5 ± 1.2）,差异均有统计学意义（t_{4 h} = -4.971、t_{8 h} = -14.913、t_{24 h} = -4.471,P均<0.001）。研究组镇痛泵有效按压次数[（2.11 ± 1.47）次]显著低于对照组[（8.84 ± 1.94）次],差异有统计学意义（t = -17.001,P<0.001）。（3）血流动力学指标：在入室、入室后1 h及出室时刻,两组收缩压差异无统计学意义（t_入室 = -1.870,P_入室 = 0.066,t_{入室1 h} = -1.583,P_{入室1 h} = 0.118,t_出室 = -1.805,P_出室 = 0.075）;对照组出室时舒张压差为（59 ± 9）mmHg（1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa）,高于研究组[（55 ± 4）mmHg],差异有统计学意义（t = -2.249,P = 0.028）,在其余时间上两组差异无统计学意义。 结论右美托咪定复合罗哌卡因用于成年女性患者颞下颌关节手术局部浸润麻醉可以减少恶心呕吐发生率的同时提高术后镇痛效果、延长镇痛时间,值得临床推广。     

七氟烷联合瑞芬太尼在老年口腔恶性肿瘤患者麻醉中的应用

目的 观察老年口腔恶性肿瘤手术麻醉维持期联合使用七氟烷和瑞芬太尼对术中血流动力学和术后苏醒期的影响。方法 40例老年口腔恶性肿瘤患者随机分为P组和S组,每组20例。P组全程采用丙泊酚-芬太尼静脉麻醉;S组采用七氟烷-瑞芬太尼维持麻醉。观察手术开始后1h、3h时心率、平均动脉压、自主呼吸恢复时间、清醒时间和苏醒期躁动与恶心呕吐情况。结果 术中两组均能维持血压和心率稳定,S组血压略低于P组(P<0.05)。术后S组自主呼吸恢复时间大于P组(P<0.01);S组清醒时间小于P组(P<0.01);两期组苏醒躁动例数无统计学差异(P>0.05);所有患者苏醒期均未发现恶心呕吐。结论 老年口腔恶性肿瘤手术麻醉维持期使用七氟烷和瑞芬太尼是安全可行的,能加快患者术后苏醒,且不增加麻醉并发症的发生率。?     

Hypotensive anesthesia and recovery of cognitive function in long-term craniofacial surgery

The aim of our study was to compare three different anesthesiological techniques with regard to hemodynamics, recovery, and postoperative morbidity, for craniofacial surgery. One hundred twenty patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of I or II patients, 18 to 32 years old, and undergoing maxillary and mandibular osteotomies were randomly assigned to receive anesthesia with propofol-remifentanil (group P), desflurane-remifentanil (group D), or sevoflurane-remifentanil (group S). All patients were given premedication: midazolam 0.03 mg/kg, atropine 0.007 mg/kg, desametasone 0.1 mg/kg, NaCl 0.9% 100 mL + 2 mg/kg ketoprofene + 1.5 mg/kg ranitidine + 1 microg/kg clonidine. Anesthesia was induced by O2/air (FiO2 0.5), remifentanil 0.5 microg/kg/min, propofol 2 mg/kg, rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg. Maintenance group P received O2/air (FiO2 0.5), remifentanil 0.25 to 1.5 microg/kg/min, propofol 6 to 10 mg/kg/h; groups D and S received O2/air (FiO2 0.5), remifentanil 0.25 to 1.5 microg/kg/min, and respectively, sevoflurane or desflurane 0.5 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration. The dosage of propofol, desflurane, and sevoflurane, obtained with a value of bispectral index (BIS) 40, was kept unchanged throughout the course, and remifentanil was titrated to maintain controlled hypotension: systolic arterial blood pressure 70 to 90 mmHg and mean arterial blood pressure 50 to 65 mmHg. A 24-hour elastomeric infusion system (ketoprofene 320 mg) was started 60 minutes before induction and cloridrat ondansetron 0.1 mg/kg was administered 30 minutes before the end of surgery. Hypotension was successfully obtained in all three groups with a bloodless surgical field, and there was no need for additional use of a potent hypotensive agent. Early and late recovery were faster and more complete in the D group; P < 0.05. Postoperative morbidity (nausea, vomiting, shivering, pain, and edema) was slight and did not significantly differ among the groups.