It is the most common cancer of gallbladder, gallbladder cancer remains a rare disease. Gallbladder cancer is a rare disease that can be accidentally diagnosed after cholecystectomy or accidentally, often with more advanced disease. The prognosis is generally extremely poor and improvements in surgical resection of this approach have to be re-evaluated, while the role of chemotherapy and radiotherapy remains controversial.
BACKGROUND: This prospective randomized double blind study was conducted to evaluate the effect and safety of intrathecal dexmedetomidine added to isobaric ropivacaine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 120 adult female patients, who underwent vaginal hysterectomies, were randomly allocated to receive intrathecally either 3 ml of 0.75% isobaric ropivacaine + 0.5 ml normal saline (Group R) or 3 ml of 0.75% isobaric ropivacaine +5 μg dexmedetomidine in 0.5 ml of normal saline (Group D). Following intrathecal administration, duration of onset of sensory and motor blockade, maximum dermatomal level achieved, duration of analgesia, hemodynamic parameters and incidence of side effects were observed. RESULTS: Duration of onset of sensory block upto T10, T8 and the highest level of block achieved i. e. T6 were similar in both the groups. The mean time of sensory regression to S2 was 297.71±34.11 min in group D and 221.35±22.70 min in group R. Time to achieve Bromage score 0 was significantly slower with the addition of dexmedetomidine (229.37±28.74 min in group R vs. 258.55±30.46 min in group D). Duration of postoperative analgesia was significantly greater in group D (270.00±38.75 min) as compared to group R (174.77±22.31 min). The maximum VAS score for pain was less in group D (4.42±0.69) as compared to group R (7.03±0.78). There were no significant difference in hemodynamic parameters and incidence of side effects in both the groups. CONCLUSION: The addition of dexmedetomidine to ropivacaine intrathecally produces significantly longer sensory and motor blockade along with better postoperative analgesia, and excellent hemodynamic stability without any significant side effects.
Background:Limited evidence supports the efficacy of peripheral route fentanyl and local anesthetic combination for postoperative analgesia. Our study was therefore designed to demonstrate the analgesic efficacy of two different doses of fentanyl in combination with bupivacaine for surgical site infiltration in patients undergoing modified radical mastoidectomy (MRM).Materials and Methods:60 patients undergoing MRM under general anesthesia were randomly allocated into two groups, first group receiving 0.5% bupivacaine at a dose of 2 mg/kg body weight with 50 μg fentanyl and second group receiving bupivacaine 0.5% at a dose of 2 mg/kg body weight with 100 μg fentanyl as infiltration of operative field in and around the incision site, after the incision and just before completion of surgery. In postoperative period pain, nausea-vomiting and sedation was recorded at 0 hr, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24 hrs.Results:Both the combinations of bupivacaine and fentanyl (Group I and Group II) were effective for postoperative analgesia. In both the groups the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score was less than 3 at each time interval. None of the patients required rescue analgesia. The comparison of VAS scores at different intervals showed that group II had lower VAS scores at all time points.Conclusions:Fentanyl and bupivacaine combinations in doses of 50 and 100 μg along with 0.5% bupivacaine at a fixed dose of 2 mg/kg body weight are effective in the management of postoperative pain. Patients who received 100 μg fentanyl (Group II) had lower VAS scores as compared to the patients who received 50 μg fentanyl (Group I) with similar side effects.
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.