The aims of this study were to identify differences in post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and throat pain between throat packed and non-packed patient groups in nasal surgery. This was a prospective, double blind, randomised controlled trial. A water-soaked throat pack gauze was inserted in the mouth to occlude the oropharynx was used in the throat pack group. The second group received no throat pack. A validated PONV questionnaire was completed 6 h post-operatively. Visual analogue scores (VAS) for throat pain were completed in recovery, 2, and 6 h post-operatively. 80 patients were enrolled (40 into each group based on power calculation). With regard to the primary outcome measure, mean PONV score for the throat pack group was 2.75 [median 0, standard deviation (SD 10.86)] and the mean PONV score for the non-packed group was 0.36 (median 0, SD 1.39). The difference in PONV was not statistically significant [P value 0.375, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.19 to 3.32]. With regard to throat pain VAS scores (our secondary outcome measure), in recovery, the mean throat pain VAS score for the throat packed group was 2.5 (median 1, SD 2.8) and the mean throat pain VAS score for the non-throat packed group was 1.3 (median 0, SD 2.5). Statistical analysis showed a significant difference between the two groups with the throat pack group experiencing more throat pain in recovery (P value 0.018 (95% CI 1.13-2.52). At 2 and 6 h post-operatively, the mean throat pain VAS scores for the throat packed group were 2.1 and 2.3, respectively, and the mean throat pain VAS score for the non-throat packed group was 2.3 and 1.4, respectively. Statistical analysis showed non-significant difference between the two groups at 2 and 6 h post-operatively. The use of throat packs in nasal surgery does not confer PONV reduction benefit. The use of throat pack, however, is associated with a small but statistically significant more throat pain in the initial recovery period from nasal operations.

No abstract

No abstract

We examined the effect of remifentanil on the haemodynamic response to rigid bronchoscopy in 22 adult ASA 2–4 patients, randomly allocated to receive 1.0 µg.kg−1 remifentanil over 1 min followed by 0.5 µg.kg−1.min−1 (remifentanil group) or 2.0 µg.kg−1 fentanyl followed by a saline infusion (control group). Following the initial infusion, all patients received a sleep dose of propofol followed by rocuronium 0.6 mg.kg−1 and their lungs were ventilated using a Sander's injector attached to the rigid bronchoscope. Direct arterial blood pressures, heart rate and ST segment changes on the CM5 lead configuration of the electrocardiograph were measured at 1‐min intervals from before induction of anaesthesia until the end of bronchoscopy. Arterial pressures and heart rate were similar in the two groups before and after induction of anaesthesia. Remifentanil attenuated the haemodynamic response to bronchoscopy (p < 0.05 for increases in arterial pressures and heart rate). Four patients in the remifentanil group had ST segment depression compared with eight patients in the control group, but this was not statistically significant.