Background:Maxillofacial trauma is an apt example of a difficult airway. The anesthesiologist faces challenges in their management at every step from airway access to maintenance of anesthesia and extubation and postoperative care.Methods:A retrospective study was done of 288 patients undergoing surgery for maxillofacial trauma over a period of five years. Demographic data, detailed airway assessment and the method of airway access were noted. Trauma scores, mechanism of injury, duration of hospital stay, requirement of ventilator support were also recorded. Complications encountered during perioperative anaesthetic management were noted.Results:259 (89.93%) of the patients were male and 188 (62.85%) were in the 21-40 year range. 97.57% of the cases were operated electively. 206 (71.53%) patients were injured in motor vehicular accidents. 175 (60.76%) had other associated injuries. Mean Glasgow coma scale score (GCS), injury severity score (ISS) and revised trauma score (RTS) were 14.18, 14.8 and 12, respectively. Surgery was performed almost nine days following injury. The mean duration of hospitalization was 16 days. ICU admission was required in 22 patients with mean duration of ICU stay being two days. Majority of patients had difficult airway. 240 (83.33%) patients were intubated in the operating room and fibreoptic guided intubation was done in 159 (55.21%) patients. Submental intubation was done in 45 (14.93%) cases.Conclusions:Maxillofacial injuries present a complex challenge to the anaesthesiologist. The fibreoptic bronchoscope is the main weapon available in our arsenal. The submental technique scores over the time-honored tracheostomy. Communication between the anaesthesiologist and the surgeon must be given paramount importance.
Aim:To evaluate the effect of intravenous (IV) clonidine premedication for the bloodless surgical field in patients undergoing middle ear or nasal surgery comparing three different doses.Subjects and Methods:This prospective randomized, clinical trial was performed on 90 normotensive patients belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I/II, aged 18–60 years, of either sex, undergoing routine middle ear or nasal surgery. These patients were divided into three Groups A, B, and C with 30 patients in each according to the dose of IV clonidine used as premedicant that is 3, 4, and 5 µg/kg, respectively. The hypotensive period commenced 10 min after the start of surgery till the surgeon's request for no hypotension required any longer. The target mean blood pressure for producing bloodless surgical field was 60–70 mmHg. During the hypotensive period, the surgeons were asked to rate the bleeding severity score on a six-point scale from 0 (no bleeding) to 5 (severe bleeding).Statistical Analysis Used:ANOVA, Chi-square test, Z-test, standard deviation and P value.Results:IV clonidine premedication in a dose of 4 and 5 µg/kg reduces bleeding and provides a clear field for surgery. It also reduces the requirement of isoflurane, fentanyl, and metoprolol for controlled hypotension. However, clonidine 5 µg/kg was not more effective than clonidine 4 µg/kg in producing these effects rather was associated with some side effects.Conclusion:IV clonidine premedication in a dose of 4 µg/kg is safe and effective for producing a bloodless surgical field in the middle ear and nasal surgery.
Subarachnoid block with local anaesthetic agent and opiod as an adjuvant is a well-known technique with a good record of safety. However, some rare neurological complications like aphonia, dysphagia and tingling sensation have been reported following their administration in pregnant females posted for labour analgesia or caesarean section. We report a case of transient aphonia, aphagia and facial tingling following intrathecal administration of bupivacaine along with fentanyl for lower limb wound debridement in a male patient.
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.