Background. Different methods and propofol formulations have been used to decrease propofol injection pain, but it remains an unresolved problem. We aimed to investigate the effect of i.v. acetaminophen pretreatment on the propofol injection pain.

Objective:The purpose of this study was to compare etomidate-lipuro and propofol and 50%, (1:1) admixture of these agents at induction with special reference to injection pain, hemodynamic changes, and myoclonus.Methods:Ninety patients were assigned at random to three groups in which induction was performed with either etomidate-lipuro, propofol or etomidate-lipuro–propofol admixture. After monitorization with bispectral index (BIS) all agents were given with infusion with a perfuser at a constant rate of 200 ml/min till the BIS values decreased to 40. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured every 30 s at this period. Patients were asked for pain at the injection site and observed visually for myoclonus. The time BIS values decreased to 40 (BIS 40 time) and total amounts of induction doses were measured.Results:BIS 40 time measurements were P > E > PE (199.4 ± 40.9, 176.9 ± 31.6, 163.5 ± 20.6 s). The hemodynamic (systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressures, heart rate) changes were minimal in group PE than other two groups (P = 0.017). The intensity of myoclonus was graded as mild in 9, moderate in 12, and severe in 5 patients in the group E (76.3%). Myoclonus was not observed in group PE and group P. There were no injection pain in group PE as the incidence were (83.8%) in group P and in (63.2%) group E.Conclusion:Incidence of hemodynamic changes, myoclonus, and injection pain is significantly lower in group PE. BIS 40 times is least in group PE. We concluded that 1:1 admixture of etomidate-lipuro and propofol is a valuable agent for induction.

Background: The aim of this post hoc analysis of a large cohort study was to evaluate the association between night-time surgery and the occurrence of intraoperative adverse events (AEs) and postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Methods: LAS VEGAS (Local Assessment of Ventilatory Management During General Anesthesia for Surgery) was a prospective international 1-week study that enrolled adult patients undergoing surgical procedures with general anaesthesia and mechanical ventilation in 146 hospitals across 29 countries. Surgeries were defined as occurring during 'daytime' when induction of anaesthesia was between 8:00 AM and 7:59 PM, and as 'night-time' when induction was between 8:00 PM and 7:59 AM. Results: Of 9861 included patients, 555 (5.6%) underwent surgery during night-time. The proportion of patients who developed intraoperative AEs was higher during night-time surgery in unmatched (43.6% vs 34.1%; P<0.001) and propensity-matched analyses (43.7% vs 36.8%; P¼0.029). PPCs also occurred more often in patients who underwent night-time surgery (14% vs 10%; P¼0.004) in an unmatched cohort analysis, although not in a propensity-matched analysis (13.8% vs 11.8%; P¼0.39). In a multivariable regression model, including patient characteristics and types of surgery and anaesthesia, night-time surgery was independently associated with a higher incidence of intraoperative AEs (odds ratio: 1.44; 95% confidence interval: 1.09e1.90; P¼0.01), but not with a higher incidence of PPCs (odds ratio: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 0.89e1.90; P¼0.15). Conclusions: Intraoperative adverse events and postoperative pulmonary complications occurred more often in patients undergoing night-time surgery. Imbalances in patients' clinical characteristics, types of surgery, and intraoperative management at night-time partially explained the higher incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, but not the higher incidence of adverse events. Clinical trial registration: NCT01601223.

Arun et al. Fracture of an intravenous cannula in the vein due to reinsertion of the guide needle: A case report 1

PurposeMinimally invasive surgical technics have benefits such as decreased pain, reduced surgical trauma, and increased potential to perform as day case surgery, and cost benefit. The primary aim of this prospective, randomized, controlled study was to compare the effects of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) procedures regarding postoperative pain.MethodsNinety adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included in the study. Patients were randomized to either SILC or CLC. Patient characteristics, postoperative abdominal and shoulder pain scores, rescue analgesic use, and intraoperative and early postoperative complications were recorded.ResultsA total of 83 patients completed the study. Patient characteristics, postoperative abdominal and shoulder pain scores and rescue analgesic requirement were similar between each group except with the lower abdominal pain score in CLC group at 30th minute (P = 0.04). Wound infection was seen in 1 patient in each group. Nausea occurred in 13 of 43 patients (30%) in the SILC group and 8 of 40 patients (20%) in the CLC group (P > 0.05). Despite ondansetron treatment, 6 patients in SILC group and 7 patients in CLC group vomited (P > 0.05).ConclusionIn conclusion, in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, SILC or CLC techniques does not influence the postoperative pain and analgesic medication requirements. Our results also suggest that all laparoscopy patients suffer moderate and/or severe abdominal pain and nearly half of these patients also suffer from some form of shoulder pain.