BackgroundEndoscopic thyroidectomy was recently introduced and has been rapidly accepted by surgeons and patients. The present study was conducted to estimate and compare the incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after endoscopic thyroidectomy using two different anesthetic methods: sevoflurane based balanced anesthesia; total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA).MethodsNinety nine female patients that were scheduled to undergo elective endoscopic thyroidectomy under general anesthesia were enrolled. These patients were randomly allocated to receive sevoflurane based balanced anesthesia (BA group) or propofol-remifentanil anesthesia (TIVA group). PONV was evaluated using a 4-point Likert scale, and pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS; range 0 to 100) for 0-2, 2-6, and 6-24 hours postoperatively. At 24 hours postoperatively, overall patient satisfaction regarding PONV and pain were recorded.ResultsThe incidence of PONV was 14.6% in the TIVA group and 51.3% in the BA group. The incidence of nausea at 0-2 and 2-6 hours postoperatively was lower in the TIVA group than in the BA group (4.2% vs. 35.9%, 6.3% vs. 23.1%, respectively), but no between-group difference was observed at 6-24 hours postoperatively (8.3% vs. 5.1%). Antiemetic usage at 0-2 and 2-6 hours was lower in the TIVA than the BA group (4.2% vs. 38.5%, 6.3% vs. 23.1%), but no between-group difference was observed for 6-24 hours (6.3% vs. 7.7%). There were no differences in pain or in patient satisfaction.ConclusionsAfter endoscopic thyroidectomy, total intravenous anesthesia with propofol-remifentanil is associated with less PONV during the early postoperative period (0-6 hours) than sevoflurane based balanced anesthesia.
Background Older adults are given high priority for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination; however, little is known about the safety of vaccines. This study was conducted to examine the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine for people who were ≥ 75 years of age, specifically those who first took two doses of the vaccine at the COVID-19 central vaccination center in South Korea. Methods Safety monitoring after the BNT162b2 vaccine was conducted in three ways for older adults who received the first dose of the vaccine at our center between April 5 and April 23, 2021. For immediate adverse reactions, every person who was vaccinated was observed for 15–30 minutes after injection at the center. For active surveillance, a telephone interview was conducted for stratified randomly sampled people after 7 days of each vaccination to enquire regarding types of adverse reactions they experienced, and its severity and duration. For passive surveillance, reported adverse event data were collected from the COVID-19 vaccine adverse event following immunization (AEFI) surveillance system—run by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA). The data were then reviewed. Results In total, 2,123 older adults received at least one vaccine dose during the study period. The frequency of acute adverse reactions that developed during the observed 15–30 minutes after injection was 8.5 cases per 1,000 doses. None of the reactions was assessed as acute allergic reactions to the vaccine and no cases required special treatment or drug administration. Overall, 638 people were followed up at least once by telephone interview 7 days post vaccination. The overall response rate was 82.3%. The rates of local reactions were 50.3% after the first dose and 45.2% after the second dose, and the rates of systemic reactions were 15.2% and 26.0%, respectively. During the study period, 23 medically attended adverse events (5.4 cases per 1,000 administered doses) were reported to the KDCA AEFI surveillance system. The most common symptoms of medically attended cases were nonspecific general weakness (26%) and dizziness (26%), followed by muscle pain (22%), headache (13%), fever (13%), and skin rash or urticaria (13%). Among them, there were five serious adverse events reported, which required hospitalization, including one death. However, most of them were not related to the vaccines. Conclusion BNT162b2 vaccination was tolerable among adults who were ≥ 75 years of age.
BackgroundSugammadex is a reversal agent for non-depolarizing neuromuscular blockers and widely used worldwide on account of its rapid and effective reversal from neuromuscular blockade, despite its advantages, multiple cases of sugammadex-induced anaphylactic shock have been reported.CaseA 42-year-old man developed anaphylactic shock in the postanesthesia care unit. Initially, sugammadex was suspected as the causative agent, but an intradermal skin test revealed negative results. A further skin test was performed with sugammadex-rocuronium complex that yielded positive results.ConclusionsAnesthesiologists and healthcare providers should be aware of the possibility of anaphylaxis from the sugammadex-rocuronium complex, as well as from sugammadex or rocuronium alone.
Sleep-related breathing disorder (SRBD) is a common symptom of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The aim of this study was to determine whether kidney transplantation improves SRBD. Twenty-four patients with ESRD, who were admitted for kidney transplantation, underwent a sleep study using a portable ventilation effort recorder on the night before transplantation. Of these patients, 20 could repeat the overnight monitoring two wk after the transplantation. The median apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of the 20 patients was 13.5 (range, 2-40), and significantly reduced to 4.5 (range, 0-20) after transplantation (p = 0.003). This reduction was most prominent in 12 patients with SRBD, for whom the median AHI fell from 22 (range, 10-40) to 6.5 (range, 1-20; p = 0.010). SRBD improvement, defined as an AHI equal to or >50% and/or reduced to <10/h, was observed in eight of the 12 apneic patients. These results suggest that kidney transplantation may immediately improve SRBD in patients with ESRD. However, conclusions from this study should be taken with caution because of the limitations of our method, specifically the use of a portable recorder and a small number of patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.