Background:Sore throat and hoarseness are common complications of endotracheal intubation. It may be very distressing for the patient and may lead to sleep disturbances and unpleasant memories.Materials and Methods:This prospective double-blinded randomized control trial was aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic intravenous dexamethasone to reduce the incidence of postoperative sore throat at 1 hour after tracheal extubation. Ninety six patients of either sex aged between 18 to 60 years scheduled for elective surgeries needing general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation, were randomly allocated into two groups A and B. The patients received either intravenous 0.2 mg/kg dexamethasone (group A, n = 48) or normal saline (group B, n = 47) just before induction. Trachea was intubated with appropriate size disposable endotracheal tubes for securing the airway. Follow up for the incidence of sore throat, cough and hoarseness was done at 1, 6 and 24 hours post-extubation.Results:At 1 hour post-extubation, the incidence of sore throat in the control group was 48.9% compared with 18.8% in the dexamethasone group (P<0.002).Conclusions:Prophylactic intravenous dexamethasone in a dose of 0.2 mg/kg can reduce the incidence of postoperative sore throat at 1 hour post-extubation by around 30%, with the efficacy being around 60%.

This article is a narrative review about how appropriate authorship can be achieved, a brief mention about various scientific misconducts, the reason and consequences of such misconducts and finally, the policies to be adopted by the aspiring authors to avert these problems. The literature search was performed in the Google and PubMed using ‘scientific misconduct’, ‘honorary/ghost authorship’, ‘publish-or-perish’, ‘plagiarism’ and other related key words and phrases. More than 300 free full-text articles published from 1990 to 2015 were retrieved and studied. Many consensus views have been presented regarding what constitutes authorship, the authorship order and different scientific misconducts. The conflicts about authorship issues related to publication of dissertation, the area of the grey zone have been discussed. Suggestions from different authorities about improving the existing inappropriate authorship issues have been included.

Background and Aims:Studies have already compared propofol and midazolam as sedatives during regional anaesthesia. A few studies have focused on recovery characteristics and very few have utilised both instrumental and clinical sedation monitoring for assessing recovery time. This study was designed primarily to compare arousal time from sedation using propofol with that of midazolam during spinal anaesthesia for infraumbilical surgeries, while depth of sedation was monitored continuously with bispectral index (BIS) monitor. The correlation between the BIS score and observer's assessment of awareness/sedation (OAA/S) score during recovery from sedation was also studied.Methods:A total of 110 patients were randomly assigned to receive either propofol (Group P, n = 55) or midazolam (Group M, n = 55). Patients in the Group P received bolus of propofol (1 mg/kg), followed by infusion at 3 mg/kg/h; Group M received bolus of midazolam (0.05 mg/kg), followed by infusion at 0.06 mg/kg/h and titration until BIS score 70 was achieved and maintained between 65 and 70. OAA/S score was noted at BIS 70 and again at BIS 90 during recovery. The time to achieve OAA/S score 5 was noted. Spearman's correlation was calculated between the arousal time from sedation and the time taken to reach an OAA/S score of 5 in both the study groups.Results:Arousal time from sedation was found lower for Group P compared to Group M (7.54 ± 3.70 vs. 15.54 ± 6.93 min, respectively, P = 0.000). The time taken to reach OAA/S score 5 was also found to be lower for Group P than Group M (6.81 ± 2.54 min vs. 13.51 ± 6.24 min, respectively, P = 0.000).Conclusion:A shorter arousal time from sedation during spinal anaesthesia can be achieved using propofol compared with midazolam, while depth of sedation was monitored with BIS monitor and OAA/S score. Both objective and clinical scoring correlate strongly during recovery from sedation.

Background:Correlation between the clinical and electroencephalogram-based monitoring has been documented sporadically during the onset of sedation. Propofol and midazolam have been studied individually using the observer's assessment of awareness/sedation (OAA/S) score and Bispectral index score (BIS). The present study was designed to compare the time to onset of sedation for propofol and midazolam using both BIS and OAA/S scores, and to find out any correlation.Methods:A total of 46 patients (18-60 years, either sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I/II) posted for infraumbilical surgeries under spinal anaesthesia were randomly allocated to receive either injection propofol 1 mg/kg bolus followed by infusion 3 mg/kg/h (Group P, n=23) or injection midazolam 0.05 mg/kg bolus followed by infusion 0.06 mg/kg/h (Group M, n=23). Spinal anaesthesia was given with 2.5 ml to 3.0 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine heavy. When sensory block reached T6 level, sedation was initiated. The time to reach BIS score 70 and time to achieve OAA/S score 3 from the start of study drug were noted. OAA/S score at BIS score 70 was noted. Data from 43 patients were analyzed using SPSS 12 for Windows.Results:Time to reach BIS score 70 using propofol was significantly lower than using the midazolam (P<0.05). Time to achieve OAA/S score 3 using propofol was comparable with midazolam (P=0.358).Conclusion:A divergence exists between the time to reach BIS score 70 and time to achieve OAA/S score 3 using midazolam, compared with propofol, during the onset of sedation.

BACKGROUND Summary-Despite several novel techniques reported in the literature regarding nasogastric tube placement, no technique has emerged as the most efficient method, especially for unconscious patients. A few of them appears to be achieving higher success rate and considered to be better than the rest. Varied complications have been reported in the literature. We searched for relevant medical literature in English using Google Search Engine. The following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were used: