Background: Anxiolytic premedication requires careful consideration owing to potential side effects including delayed recovery after ambulatory anesthesia. We aimed to compare the effect of midazolam on recovery profiles postoperatively, depending on whether propofol or sevoflurane was the primary anesthetic. Methods: We enrolled 226 patients (age, 18–50 years) undergoing ambulatory gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. Patients were categorized into propofol without midazolam (P), propofol with midazolam (MP), sevoflurane without midazolam (S), and sevoflurane with midazolam (MS) groups. As premedication, placebo or 0.02 mg/kg intravenous midazolam was used. The primary outcome was the difference in the time from anesthetic discontinuation to eye opening in response to verbal command. Secondary outcomes included postoperative nausea and pain occurrence and time to reach the discharge score. Results: The time from anesthetic discontinuation to eye opening was longer in the MP group (n = 49) than in the P group (n = 50; P < .001) but was not significantly different between the MS (n = 50) and S groups (n = 49; P = .1). Midazolam premedication did not significantly affect postoperative nausea in the MP group compared with that in the P group (P = .3) but had a nausea prevention effect in the MS group compared with that in the S group (P < .001). The time to reach the discharge score was similar in all patients regardless of midazolam administration. Conclusion: In the recovery from short-duration ambulatory gynecologic surgery in young patients, intravenous midazolam premedication showed positive effects on postoperative nausea without affecting the time from anesthetic discontinuation to eye opening with sevoflurane-based anesthesia but prolonged the time from anesthetic discontinuation to eye opening with propofol-based anesthesia. Because this difference between the propofol groups is not clinically significant, the results support midazolam premedication in young women. Further studies assessing larger populations are needed.

We experienced an unusual case of accelerated junctional rhythm with severe hypotension after infiltration of lidocaine containing epinephrine during dental surgery under general anesthesia. The patient's electrocardiogram exhibited retrograde P-waves following the QRS complex, which could be misinterpreted as ST-segment depression. As a temporary measure, administration of ephedrine restored the patient's blood pressure to normal levels. The importance of this case lies in its demonstration of an unexpected and serious side effect of commonly used epinephrine infiltration. This case also highlights the need for accurate interpretation of the electrocardiogram and comprehensive understanding of best practices for patient management.