Objective:To evaluate the efficacy of lidocaine patch applied around wound in laparoscopic colorectal surgery in reduction of postoperative pain and illus compared to intravenous lidocaine infusion and placebo.Background:Postoperative illus and pain after colorectal surgery is a challenging problem associated with increased morbidity and cost. Inflammatory response to surgery plays crucial rule in inducing postoperative illus. Systemic local anesthetics proved to have anti-inflammatory properties that may be beneficial in preventing ileus added to its analgesic actions. The lidocaine patch evaluated in many types of pain with promising results. We try to evaluate the patch in perioperative field as a more simple and safe technique than the intravenous route.Materials and Methods:Prospective, randomized, controlled study was conducted, comparing three groups. Group 1 (placebo) received saline infusion, group 2 received i.v. lidocaine infusion after induction of anesthesia, 2 mg/min if body weight >70 kg or 1 mg/min if body weight <70 kg, group 3 received lidocaine patch 5%, three patches each one divided into two equal parts and applied around the three wounds just before induction. Data collected were, pain scores (VAS), morphine consumption, return of bowel function, pro-inflammatory cytokines plasma levels and plasma lidocaine level.Results:Pain intensity (VAS) scores at rest and during coughing were significantly lower during the first 72 h postoperative in i.v. lidocaine group and patch group compared to the placebo group. Mean morphine consumption were significantly lower in the i.v. lidocaine group and patch group compared to placebo group. Return of the bowel function was significantly earlier in i.v. lidocaine group in comparison to the other groups. Proinflammatory cytokines (IL6, IL8, and C3a) were significantly lower in i.v. lidocaine group compared to the other two groups.Conclusion:The lidocaine patch was equal to i.v. lidocaine infusion in decreasing pain scores and morphine consumption but not in acceleration of bowel function return.

Objectives:The present study was conducted to evaluate the cardioprotective effect of sevoflurane compared with propofol in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing peripheral vascular surgery; and to address the question whether a volatile anesthetic might improve cardiac outcome in these patients.Methods:One hundred twenty-six patients scheduled for elective peripheral vascular surgery were prospectively randomized to receive either sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia or total intravenous anesthesia. ST-segment monitoring was performed continuously during intra- and post-operative 48 h periods. The number of ischemic events and the cumulative duration of ischemia in each patient were recorded. Blood was sampled in all patients for the determination of cTnI. Samples were obtained before the induction of anesthesia, on admission to the ICU, and at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were followed-up during their hospital stay for any adverse cardiac events.Results:The incidence of ischemia were comparable among the groups [16 (25%) patients in sevoflurane group vs 24 (39%) patients in propofol group; P=0.126]. Duration, cumulative duration, and magnitude of ST-segment depression of ischemic events in each patient were significantly less in sevoflurane group (P=0.008, 0.048, 0.038, respectively). cTnI levels of the overall population were significantly less in sevoflurane group vs propofol group (P values <0.0001) from 6 h postoperative and onward. Meanwhile, cTnI levels at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h after admission to the ICU in patients who presented with ischemic electrocardiographic (ECG) changes were significantly lower in sevoflurane group than in the propofol group (P<0.0001, <0.0001, <0.0001, 0.0003). None of the patients presented with unstable angina, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or serious arrhythmia either during ICU or hospital stay.Conclusion:Patients with CAD receiving sevoflurane for peripheral vascular surgery had significantly lower release of cardiac troponin I at 6 h postoperatively and lasting for 48 h than patients receiving propofol for the same procedure with significant decrease in duration, cumulative duration of ischemic events, and degree of ST depression in each patient.

Introduction:Daily interruption of sedation could minimize the problem of sedatives accumulation. Nevertheless, whatever is the sedation strategy; sedation, particularly deep levels, has been associated with high frequency of patient-ventilator asynchrony. Extending these findings, one would expect that no sedation protocol could reduce the frequency of patient-ventilator asynchrony.Aim:To assess the effect of no sedation protocol compared with daily interruption of sedation on patient-ventilator asynchrony in surgical intensive care patients.Materials and Methods:The study included 230 patients who expected to require mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h. They were randomized to receive either continuous sedation (1 mg/mL midazolam) to achieve a Ramsay score of 3-4 with daily interruption until awake (group D; n = 115), or no sedation (group N; n = 115). Both groups received bolus doses of morphine (2.5-5 mg) as needed to achieve a score of ≤2 on behavioral pain scale.Results:No sedation was associated with significantly lower ineffective triggering and asynchrony index but significantly higher double triggering. Patient's effort during triggering was significantly higher during no sedation. The respiratory rate increased and the PaCO2 decreased significantly in no sedation group.Conclusion:No sedation protocol reduces the asynchrony index and preserves the patient's effort during triggering.