Ultrasonographic-guided ISB is a cost-effective method for arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

Total hip or knee replacement surgeries are common orthopedic interventions that can be performed with spinal anesthesia (SA) or general anesthesia (GA). No study has investigated the economic aspects associated with the two anesthetic techniques for this common surgery. We randomized 40 patients to receive either SA or GA and analyzed the drug and supply costs for anesthesia und recovery. Anesthesia-related times, hemodynamic variables, and pain scores were also recorded. Total costs per case without personnel costs were almost half in the SA group compared with the GA group; this was a result of less cost for anesthesia (P < 0.01) and for recovery (P < 0.05). This finding was supported by a sensitivity analysis. There were no relevant differences regarding anesthesia-related times. Patients in the GA group were admitted to the postanesthesia care unit with a higher pain score and needed more analgesics than patients in the SA group (both P < 0.01). We conclude that SA is a more cost-effective alternative to GA in patients undergoing hip or knee replacement, as it is associated with lower fixed and variable costs. Moreover, SA seems to be more effective, as patients in the SA group showed lower postoperative pain scores during their stay in the postanesthesia care unit.

Objective To determine which bedside method of detecting inadvertent endobronchial intubation in adults has the highest sensitivity and specificity.Design Prospective randomised blinded study.Setting Department of anaesthesia in tertiary academic hospital.Participants 160 consecutive patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists category I or II) aged 19-75 scheduled for elective gynaecological or urological surgery.Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to eight study groups. In four groups, an endotracheal tube was fibreoptically positioned 2.5-4.0 cm above the carina, whereas in the other four groups the tube was positioned in the right mainstem bronchus. The four groups differed in the bedside test used to verify the position of the endotracheal tube. To determine whether the tube was properly positioned in the trachea, in each patient first year residents and experienced anaesthetists were randomly assigned to independently perform bilateral auscultation of the chest (auscultation); observation and palpation of symmetrical chest movements (observation); estimation of the position of the tube by the insertion depth (tube depth); or a combination of all three (all three).Main outcome measures Correct and incorrect judgments of endotracheal tube position.Results 160 patients underwent 320 observations by experienced and inexperienced anaesthetists. First year residents missed endobronchial intubation by auscultation in 55% of cases and performed significantly worse than experienced anaesthetists with this bedside test (odds ratio 10.0, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 434). With a sensitivity of 88% (95% confidence interval 75% to 100%) and 100%, respectively, tube depth and the three tests combined were significantly more sensitive for detecting endobronchial intubation than auscultation (65%, 49% to 81%) or observation(43%, 25% to 60%) (P<0.001). The four tested methods had the same specificity for ruling out endobronchial intubation (that is, confirming correct tracheal intubation). The average correct tube insertion depth was 21 cm in women and 23 cm in men. By inserting the tube to these distances, however, the distal tip of the tube was less than 2.5 cm away from the carina (the recommended safety distance, to prevent inadvertent endobronchial intubation with changes in the position of the head in intubated patients) in 20% (24/118) of women and 18% (7/42) of men. Therefore optimal tube insertion depth was considered to be 20 cm in women and 22 cm in men.Conclusion Less experienced clinicians should rely more on tube insertion depth than on auscultation to detect inadvertent endobronchial intubation. But even experienced physicians will benefit from inserting tubes to 20-21 cm in women and 22-23 cm in men, especially when high ambient noise precludes accurate auscultation (such as in emergency situations or helicopter transport). The highest sensitivity and specificity for ruling out endobronchial intubation, however, is achieved by combining tube depth, auscultation of the lungs, and observation of...

Awake nasotracheal fiberoptic intubation requires an anesthetic management that provides sufficient patient comfort, adequate intubating conditions, and stable hemodynamics. Short-acting and easily titratable analgesics are excellent choices for this maneuver. In this study, our aim was to determine an appropriate dosage regimen of remifentanil for awake nasotracheal fiberoptic intubation. For that reason, we compared two different dosage regimens. Twenty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive remifentanil 0.75 micro g/kg in bolus, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.075 micro g x kg(-1) x min(-1) (Group L), or remifentanil 1.5 micro g/kg in bolus, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.15 micro g x kg(-1) x min(-1) (Group H). All patients were premedicated with midazolam 0.05 mg/kg IV and glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg IV. Both dosage regimens ensured patient comfort and sedation. Discomfort did not differ between groups. Patients in Group H were sedated more profoundly. Hemodynamic stability was maintained with both remifentanil doses. Intubating conditions were adequate in all patients and comparable between the groups. The large dosage regimen did not result in any additional benefit compared with the small dosage. For awake nasotracheal fiberoptic intubation, we therefore recommend remifentanil 0.75 micro g/kg in bolus followed by continuous infusion of 0.075 micro g x kg(-1) x min(-1), supplemented with midazolam 0.05 mg/kg.