Anesthetic maintenance with either remifentanil or dexmedetomidine infusion until extubation provided a more smooth and hemodynamically stable emergence, without complications after nasal surgery. While remifentanil was superior to dexmedetomidine with regard to avoiding EA, dexmedetomidine was more effective than remifentanil regarding vomiting and pain.
To compare sugammadex and neostigmine regarding the efficacy in reversing rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block, the incidence of post-operative respiratory complications and costs in patients undergoing surgery for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). Methods: After obtaining ethical approval and patient consent, 74 patients in ASA physical status I or II were randomised into two groups to receive 2-mg kg −1 sugammadex (Group S) or 0.04-mg kg −1 neostigmine+0.5-mg atropine (Group N). Groups were compared regarding time to TOF (train-of-four) 0.9, operating room time, post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, post-operative respiratory complications, costs related to neuromuscular block reversal, anaesthesia care and complication treatment. Results: Patient demographics, anaesthesia, surgical data and total rocuronium doses were similar between groups. Time to TOF 0.9 was shorter for group S [Group N: 8 (5-18) min; Group S: 2 (1.5-6) min (p<0.001)]. Operating room time [Group S: 72.4±14.3 min; Group N: 96.6±22.8 min (p<0.001)] and PACU stay [Group S: 22.9±10.1 dk; Group N: 36.3±12.6 dk (p<0.001)] were also shorter in Group S. After extubation, desaturation was observed in 12 (32.4%) patients in group N and in 4 (8%) patients in group S (p=0.048). In group N, three patients were reintubated; there were eight (21.6%) unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. There was one unplanned ICU admission in group S. Negative pressure pulmonary oedema was observed in one patient in group N. The results regarding costs were as follows. The reversal cost was higher in the sugammadex group (vial cost 98.14 TL) than that in the neostigmine group (ampoule cost 0.27 TL; total 6147.88 TL vs. 3569.5 TL); however, complication treatment cost and total cost were lower in group S than those in group N (199.5 TL vs. 3944.6 TL) (staff anaesthesia doctor cost was 0.392 TL per min and the cost of nurse anaesthetist was 0.244 TL per min). Conclusion: This study confirmed the efficacy of sugammadex over neostigmine for the reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block. Sugammadex decreases the incidence of post-operative respiratory complications and related costs in patients with OSA.
Objective. To present the conscious sedation and the regional anesthesia technique, consisting of scalp block and superficial cervical plexus block, used in our institution for patients undergoing deep brain stimulation (DBS) for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease (PD).Methods. The study included 26 consecutive patients. A standardized anesthesia protocol was used and clinical data were collected prospectively.Results. Conscious sedation and regional anesthesia were used in all cases. The dexmedetomidine loading dose was 1 μg kg−1and mean infusion rate was 0.26 μg kg−1 h−1(0.21) [mean total dexmedetomidine dose: 154.68 μg (64.65)]. Propofol was used to facilitate regional anesthesia. Mean propofol dose was 1.68 mg kg (0.84) [mean total propofol dose: 117.72 mg (59.11)]. Scalp block and superficial cervical plexus block were used for regional anesthesia. Anesthesia related complications were minor. Postoperative pain was evaluated; mean visual analog scale pain scores were 0 at the postoperative 1st and 6th hours and 4 at the 12th and 24th hours. Values are mean (standard deviation).Conclusions. Dexmedetomidine sedation along with scalp block and SCPB provides good surgical conditions and pain relief and does not interfere with neurophysiologic testing during DBS for PD. During DBS the SCPB may be beneficial for patients with osteoarthritic cervical pain. This trial is registered with Clinical Trials IdentifierNCT01789385.
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.