PurposeTo compare maternal and fetal effects of intravenous phenylephrine and ephedrine administration during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in high-risk pregnancies.SourceAn extensive literature search was conducted using the US National Library of Medicine, MEDLINE search engine, Cochrane review, and Google Scholar using search terms “ephedrine and phenylephrine,” “preterm and term and spinal hypotension,” “preeclampsia and healthy parturients,” or “multiple and singleton gestation and vasopressor.” Society of Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology meeting abstracts for the past 4 years were also searched for relevant studies.Principle findingsBoth phenylephrine and ephedrine can be safely used to counteract hypotension after spinal anesthesia in patients with uteroplacental insufficiency, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and in non-elective cesarean deliveries. Vasopressor requirements before delivery in high-risk cesarean sections are reduced compared to healthy parturients. Among the articles reviewed, there were no statistically significant differences in umbilical arterial pH, umbilical venous pH, incidence of fetal acidosis, Apgar scores, or maternal hypotension when comparing maternal phenylephrine and ephedrine use.ConclusionFrom the limited existing data, phenylephrine and ephedrine are both appropriate selections for treating or preventing hypotension induced by neuraxial blockade in high-risk pregnancies. There is no clear evidence that either medication is more effective at maintaining maternal blood pressure or has a superior safety profile in this setting. Further investigations are required to determine the efficacy, ideal dosing regimens, and overall safety of phenylephrine and ephedrine administration in high-risk obstetric patients, especially in the presence uteroplacental insufficiency.

Surgery for laryngeal cancer and the following recurrent tumor growth may further change the anatomy of the airway. Airway management during anesthesia induction is challenging for the patients undergoing secondary surgery due to recurrence of laryngeal cancer or its postoperative complication, but it has never been reported. In this report, we described three cases of anesthetic induction which had different process of airway events. The first case was given intravenous general anesthetic for induction and experienced failed intubation, difficult mask ventilation and emergent tracheostomy, eventually were rescued successfully. The second case presented a fixed metastatic mass about 6 cm diameter upon the primary surgical scar of incision and preoperative apnea, underwent fibroscopy-guided conscious intubation and the process was uneventful. The third case had erythema and swelling under the mandible with erupted ulcer as well as neck immobility due to recurrent tumor. The anesthesiologist attempted fibroscopy-guided intubation via nasal passage with a tracheal tube in 2.8 mm diameter but it was failed. Subsequently, tracheostomy was performed under bilateral superficial cervical plexus block and the dissected larynx by operation verified distorted structure of glottis with S-shaped stenosis. This report concludes that, during the anesthetic induction for this special type of surgery, a detailed and comprehensive evaluation of the airway, and a routine fibroscopic examination are especially important.