The aim of this study was to compare ketamine-propofol (KP) and ketamine-dexmedetomidine (KD) combinations for deep sedation and analgesia during pediatric burn wound dressing changes. After obtaining approval from the University Ethics Committee, burn wound care or wound dressing changes were performed on 60 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II inpatients aged between 8 and 60 months with second-degree burns ranging from 5 to 25% TBSA. After recording the demographic data, the heart rate, systolic arterial pressure, diastolic arterial pressure, peripheral oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, and Ramsey sedation scores were recorded for all patients before and during the procedure. Group KP (n = 30) received 1 mg kg⁻¹ ketamine + 1 mg kg⁻¹ propofol and group KD (n = 30) received 1 mg kg⁻¹ ketamine + 0.5 μg kg⁻¹ dexmedetomidine for induction. Additional propofol (1 mg kg⁻¹) for group KP and additional dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg kg⁻¹) for group KD were administered when required. No statistically significant differences in sedation scores and peripheral oxygen saturation and diastolic arterial pressure (P > .05) were found between the two groups. However, systolic blood pressure values in group KD showed a significant increase after induction (P < .05). The recovery time was longer in group KD than in group KP (P < .05). The respiratory rate was higher in group KD than in group KP beginning from the fifth minute of the procedure. A significant amount of respiratory depression and hypoxia was observed in group KP but not in KD (P < .05). Both the KP and KD combinations were effective for sedation and analgesia during dressing changes in the pediatric burn patients. The KD combination can be considered as an excellent alternative for pediatric wound dressing changes which does not result in respiratory depression.

No abstract

The hyperalgesia that develops as a result of neuropathic pain in rabbits was observed to be reduced by PRF application.

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of different oral chloral hydrate and dexmedetomidine doses used for sedation during electroencephalography (EEG) in children. One hundred sixty children aged 1 to 9 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II who were uncooperative during EEG recording or who were referred to our electrodiagnostic unit for sleep EEG were included to the study. The patients were randomly assigned into 4 groups. In groups D1 and D2, patients received oral dexmedetomidine doses of 2 and 3 µg/kg, respectively. In group C1 and C2, patients received oral chloral hydrate doses of 50 and 100 mg/kg, respectively. The induction time was significantly shorter in group C2 compared with other groups (P = .000). The rate of adverse effects was significantly higher in group C2 compared with the dexmedetomidine groups (D1 and D2; P = .004). In conclusion, dexmedetomidine can be used safely for sedation during EEG in children.

Background and Objective:Dental treatments cannot bealways performed under local anesthesia inpediatric non-cooperative patients. For this purpose, differentanesthetic techniques have been applied to increase patient comport to dental treatments.Methods:Sixty children classified as ASA I-II, between aged 3 to 9, who were scheduled to undergo tooth extraction, were enrolled for this randomized study. Group K received 1 mg/kg ketamine, Group P received 1 mg/kg propofol, and Group KP received 0.5 mg/kg propofol plus 0.5 mg/kg ketamine intravenously for anesthesia induction.Results:Recovery time was significantly lower in Group P than Group KP. No significant differences were found between groups regarding HR, before and after the induction, at tenth minute. Fifth minute’s HR was higher in Group K than Group KP. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) values were similar at baseline, before and after the induction, and at tenth minute, whereas significantly lower values were found in Group P and Group KP than in Group K at fifth minute.Conclusions:Although ketamine, propofol and ketamine-propofol combination are effective for sedation in tooth extraction in pediatric patients, propofol may be an excellent alternative, with the shortest recovery, no nausea and vomiting, and reasonable surgical satisfaction.