BackgroundFailure to maintain an adequate airway can lead to brain damage and death. To reduce the risk of difficulty in maintaining an airway during general anesthesia, there are several known predictors of difficult intubation. People with a Malay background have different craniofacial structures in comparison with other individuals. Therefore, different predictors should be used for patients of Malay race.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the ability to predict difficult visualization of the larynx (DVL) in Malay patients based on several predictors, such as the modified Mallampati test (MMT), thyromental distance (TMD), and hyomental distance ratio (HMDR).Patients and MethodsThis cross-sectional study included 277 consecutive patients requiring general anesthesia. All subjects were evaluated using the MMT, TMD, and HMDR, and the cut-off points for the airway predictors were Mallampati III and IV, < 6.5 cm, and < 1.2, respectively. During direct laryngoscopy, the laryngeal view was graded using the Cormack-Lehane (CL) classification. CL grades III and IV were considered difficult visualization. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity for each predictor were calculated both as sole and combined predictors. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine independent predictors of DVL.ResultsDifficulty in visualizing the larynx was found in 28 (10.1%) patients. The AUC, sensitivity, and specificity for the three airway predictors were as follows: MMT: 0.614, 10.7%, and 99.2%; HMDR: 0.743, 64.2%, and 74%; and TMD: 0.827, 82.1%, and 64.7%. The combination providing the best prediction in our study involved the MMT, HMDR, and TMD with an AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.835, 60.7%, and 88.8%, respectively. Logistic regression analysis showed that the MMT, HMDR, and TMD were independent predictors of DVL.ConclusionsThe TMD, with a cut-off point of 65 mm, had superior diagnostic value compared with the HMDR and Mallampati score. Therefore, the TMD could be used in Malay patients to predict the difficulty of larynx visualization during laryngoscopy.
Background Eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) cream is often used for local anesthesia during spinal injections. However, this agent has delayed onset of action while vapocoolant spray serves more advantages. The vapocoolant spray containing ethyl chloride has fast onset and is safe, low cost, and widely available. This study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of vapocoolant spray and EMLA cream in reducing pain for spinal injections. Methods This was an experimental study on 94 subjects with 47 subjects treated with EMLA cream and 47 subjects treated with vapocoolant spray. The effectiveness of anesthesia was assessed by using Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and patient movement during the surgery. Results This study found that the pain scale was NPRS 0 (0–3) for the EMLA group and NPRS 0 (0–4) for the vapocoolant spray group. There was no significant difference between two groups for pain scale according to the Mann–Whitney U test. For patient movement, the movement was reported only in one (2.1%) patient in the EMLA group and one (2.1%) patient in the vapocoolant spray group. Based on Fisher's test, there was no significant difference between the two groups for patient movement. Conclusions Both EMLA cream and vapocoolant spray were equally effective in reducing pain during spinal injection. There was no difference in degree of pain reduction and patient movement between the EMLA cream group and the vapocoolant spray group during spinal injection.
Background Traumatic brain injury (TBI) causes high mortality and disability worldwide. Animal models have been developed to explore the complex processes in TBI. Propofol is used to manage head injuries during surgical intervention and mechanical ventilation in patients with TBI. Many studies have investigated the neuroprotective effect of propofol on TBI. However, other studies have shown neurotoxic effects. Objectives To review systematically the literature regarding the neuroprotective and neurotoxic effects of propofol in rodent models of TBI. Methods Data from rodents as models of TBI with propofol as one of the intervention agents, and/or comparing the neuroprotective effects of propofol with the other substances in rodent models of TBI, were obtained from PubMed, EBSCO Host, and ProQuest databases. The PRISMA 2020 statement recommendations were followed and research questions were developed based on PICOS guidelines. Data was extracted from the literature using a standardized Cochrane method. Results We analyzed data from 12 articles on physiological changes of experimental animals before and after trauma, the effects of propofol administration, and the observed neurotoxic effects. The effects of propofol administration were observed in terms of changes in traumatic lesion volume, the release of antioxidants and inflammatory factors, and the neurological function of rodent models of TBI. Conclusion Propofol has neuroprotective and neurotoxic effects via several mechanisms, and various doses have been used in research to determine its effects. The timing of administration, the dose administered, and the duration of administration contribute to determine the effect of propofol in rodent models of TBI. However, the doses that produce neuroprotective and neurotoxic effects are not yet clear and further research is needed to determine them.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.