The aim of this study was to compare the effect of intravenous (I.V.) dexamethasone with that of perineural dexamethasone on the prolongation of analgesic duration of single-shot interscalene brachial plexus blocks (SISB) in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery. We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients undergoing elective arthroscopic shoulder surgery with ultrasound-guided SISB were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups. A total volume of 12 mL of the study drug was prepared with a final concentration of 0.5% ropivacaine. In the I.V. group, patients received SISB using ropivacaine 5 mg mL−1 with normal saline (control) with dexamethasone 5 mg I.V. injection. In the perineural group, patients received SISB using ropivacaine 5 mg mL−1 with dexamethasone 5 mg, with normal saline 1 mL I.V. injection. The primary outcome was the time to the first analgesic request, defined as the time between the end of the operation and the first request of analgesics by the patient. The secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction scores, side effects, and neurological symptoms. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 groups using a computer-generated randomization table. An anesthesiologist blinded to the group assignments prepared the solutions for injection. The patients and the investigator participating in the study were also blinded to the group assignments. One hundred patients were randomized. Data were analyzed for 99 patients. One case in the I.V. group was converted to open surgery and was therefore not included in the study. Perineural dexamethasone significantly prolonged analgesic duration (median, standard error: 1080 minutes, 117.5 minutes) compared with I.V. dexamethasone (810 minutes, 48.1 minutes) (P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in side effects, neurological symptoms, or changes in blood glucose values between the 2 groups. Our results show that perineural dexamethasone 5 mg is more effective than I.V. dexamethasone 5 mg with regard to analgesic duration of SISB for arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

Several factors can affect the perioperative immune function. We evaluated the effect of propofol and desflurane anesthesia on the surgery-induced immune perturbation in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. The patients were randomly assigned to receive propofol (n = 20) or desflurane (n = 20) anesthesia. The total and differential white blood cell counts were determined with lymphocyte subpopulations before and 1 hr after anesthesia induction and at 24 hr postoperatively. Plasma concentrations of interleukin (IL)-2 and IL-4 were also measured. Both propofol and desflurane anesthesia preserved the IL-2/IL-4 and CD4+/CD8+ T cell ratio. Leukocytes were lower in the propofol group than in the desflurane group at 1 hr after induction (median [quartiles], 4.98 [3.87-6.31] vs. 5.84 [5.18-7.94] 103/µL) and 24 hr postoperatively (6.92 [5.54-6.86] vs. 7.62 [6.22-9.21] 103/µL). NK cells significantly decreased 1 hr after induction in the propofol group (0.41 [0.34-0.53] to 0.25 [0.21-0.33] 103/µL), but not in the desflurane group (0.33 [0.29-0.48] to 0.38 [0.30-0.56] 103/µL). Our findings indicate that both propofol and desflurane anesthesia for breast cancer surgery induce a favorable immune response in terms of preservation of IL-2/IL-4 and CD4+/CD8+ T cell ratio in the perioperative period. With respect to leukocytes and NK cells, desflurane anesthesia is associated with less adverse immune responses than propofol anesthesia during surgery for breast cancer. (Clinical trial registration at https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris number: KCT0000939)Graphical Abstract

Securing the airway in patients undergoing surgical intervention to control a deep neck infection (DNI) is challenging for anesthesiologists due to the distorted airway anatomy, limited mouth opening, tissue edema, and immobility. It is critical to assess the risk of a potential difficult airway and prepare the most appropriate airway management method.We reviewed our anesthetic experiences managing patients with DNIs, focusing on the need for video-laryngoscope or awake fiberoptic intubation beyond a standard intubation from the anesthesiologist's perspective.When patients had infections in the masticatory space, mouth of floor, oropharyngeal mucosal space, or laryngopharynx, their airways tended to be managed using methods requiring more effort by the anesthesiologists, and more extensive equipment preparation, compared with use of a standard laryngoscope. The degree to which the main lesion influenced the airway anatomy, especially at the level of epiglottis and aryepiglottic fold was related to the airway management method selected.When managing the airways of patients undergoing surgery for DNIs under general anesthesia, anesthesiologists should use imaging with computed tomography to evaluate the preoperative airway status and a comprehensive understanding of radiological findings, comorbidities, and patients’ symptoms is needed.

Foraminal or extraforaminal Far Lateral Disc Herniations (FLDH) extending into or beyond the foraminal zone have been recognized as between 7-12% of all lumbosacral disc herniations. Conventional posterior laminectomy may not provide good access to a herniation that lies far lateral to the lateral margin of the pedicle. Use of the endoscopic technique through a percutaneous approach to treat such FLDH patients can decrease the surgical morbidity while achieving better outcomes. We made an effort to utilize the advantages of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and to determine the appropriate approach for FLDH at the level between the 5th Lumbar and first Sacral vertebrae(L5-S1). The authors present a case of an endoscopically resected lumbar extruded disc of the left extraforaminal zone with superior foraminal migration at the level of L5-S1, which had led to foot drop, while placing the endoscope in the anterior epidural space without facetectomy.