Objective To compare maternal and neonatal outcomes of vacuum versus forceps application in assisted vaginal delivery. Material and Method Women in labor with vertex presentation were delivered by vacuum and forceps. A total of 120 cases were included in this prospective study. Maternal and neonatal morbidity were compared in terms of perineal lacerations, episiotomy extension, post-partum hemorrhage, Apgar score, instrumental injuries, NICU admissions PNM etc. v2 test was used to analyze the data. Observations Maternal morbidity viz. episiotomy extension as well as first and second degree perineal tear were significant in the forceps group (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.02, respectively). With regards to neonatal morbidity, no statistically significant difference was noted. Conclusion Vacuum and forceps should remain appropriate tools in the armamentarium of the modern obstetrician. However, ventouse may be chosen first (if there is no fetal distress) as it is significantly less likely to injure the mother.

No abstract

Background: Laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation are potent stimuli that can induce increased sympathetic activity leading to tachycardia, hypertension and dysrrhythmias. Various drugs and methods have been tried to obtund this response. To obtain ideal drugs, studies still continue. We compared the efficacy of clonidine and pregabalin to attenuate the pressor response during laryngoscopy and intubation. Method: Total 80 patients of ASA grade I scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia, were randomized into two groups. Group A received oral clonidine 300 mcg 2 hrs prior to surgery, group B received oral pregabalin 75mg 2 hrs prior to surgery. Heart rate and blood pressure (SBP, DBP &MAP) were recorded at baseline, before induction, before intubation, during laryngoscopy, 0, 1, 3, 5, and 10 minutes after intubation. Results: When compared to clonidine and pregabalin, there was a significant increase in HR and MAP in pregabalin after laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Clonidine was better than pregabalin in suppressing the pressor response. Conclusion: Clonidine appears to be better than Pregabalin for control of haemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation besides providing sedation. Keywords: Clonidine, Pregabalin, hemodynamic changes and endotracheal intubation.

Objective: To compare the postoperative analgesic effects of 0.2% ropivacaine with Dexmedetomidine (2 g/kg) and tramadol (2 mg/kg) among pediatric patients undergoing infra umbilical surgery.Material and Methods: This hospital based, randomized double blind interventional study included 60 pediatric patients, aged 1–7 years, having American Society of Anaesthesiology grade I and II, weighing 7-25 kg, and undergoing infraumbilical surgeries under general anesthesia. Subjects were randomly allocated into two groups to receive either: 2 mcg/ kg of Dexmedetomidine or 2 mg/kg of Tramadol, as adjuvant to 0.2% of Ropivacaine. Pain intensity was assessed using the pediatric observational Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) score. Rescue analgesia was given, when the CHEOPS score was ≥6. Duration of analgesia was defined as: the time period between administrations of block until rescue analgesia was given. Level of sedation was assessed by the Ramsay sedation score.Results: Kaplan Meier analysis showed that the median time to first rescue analgesia (duration of analgesia) was significantly (p-value<0.001) prolonged with Dexmedetomidine (780 minutes; 95% CI: 760.68–799.32 minutes) as compared to Tramadol (648 minutes; 95% CI: 635.92–660.38 minutes). Mean emergence time and duration of sedation were also significantly prolonged with Dexmedetomidine as compared to Tramadol.Conclusion: In pediatric patients undergoing infraumbilical surgeries, Dexmedetomidine as adjuvant to Ropivacaine provides an advantage of longer post-operative analgesia and lack of opioid related adverse events associated with Tramadol.

Background and Aims: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has emerged as a gold standard technique for gall bladder stones. The aim of the present study was to compare the analgesic effect of intravenous (IV) vs intraperitoneal (IP) dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to intraperitoneal (IP) bupivacaine in laparoscopy. Methods: A prospective, randomized, double blind, interventional study was conducted on 100 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy where they were divided into following 2 groups: Group A: Patients received IV 1µg/kg dexmedetomidine diluted to 30 ml with normal saline over 10 min and 40 ml of 0.125% bupivacaine IP after removal of gall bladder. Group B: Patients received IV 30 ml of normal saline and 1µg/kg IP dexmedetomidine in 40 ml of 0.125% IP bupivacaine after removal of gall bladder. The primacy outcome was noted as a difference in mean duration for need of first rescue analgesia. The total consumption of analgesic in first 24hours was recorded and compared between the two groups. Results: Both the groups were comparable in terms of demographic profile and intraoperative hemodynamic parameters with no statistical difference. Comparison of time to first analgesic requirement between the two groups showed statistically significant results with unpaired t test The time of first rescue analgesia in Group A was 151.80 min ± 76.624. and in Group B was 94.80min ± 21.499. The total analgesic requirement in 24 hours in Group A was 136.64 ± 31.251 and in Group B was 144.12 ± 21.49. Conclusion: In our study we concluded that intravenous dexmetomidine provided superior analgesia as compared to intraperitoneal dexmetomidine when used as an adjuvant with Bupivacaine intraperitoneally.