This study aimed to compare continuous intravenous infusion combinations of propofol-remifentanil and propofol-ketamine for deep sedation for surgical extraction of all 4 third molars. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled study, participants received 1 of 2 sedative combinations for deep sedation for the surgery. Both groups initially received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg for baseline sedation. The control group then received a combination of propofol-remifentanil in a ratio of 10 mg propofol to 5 μg of remifentanil per milliliter, and the experimental group received a combination of propofol-ketamine in a ratio of 10 mg of propofol to 2.5 mg of ketamine per milliliter; both were given at an initial propofol infusion rate of 100 μg/kg/min. Each group received an induction loading bolus of 500 μg/kg of the assigned propofol combination along with the appropriate continuous infusion combination . Measured outcomes included emergence and recovery times, various sedation parameters, hemodynamic and respiratory stability, patient and surgeon satisfaction, postoperative course, and associated drug costs. Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in the study. Both groups demonstrated similar sedation parameters and hemodynamic and respiratory stability; however, the ketamine group had prolonged emergence (13.6 ± 6.6 versus 7.1 ± 3.7 minutes, P = .0009) and recovery (42.9 ± 18.7 versus 24.7 ± 7.6 minutes, P = .0004) times. The prolonged recovery profile of continuously infused propofol-ketamine may limit its effectiveness as an alternative to propofol-remifentanil for deep sedation for third molar extraction and perhaps other short oral surgical procedures, especially in the ambulatory dental setting.

Twenty-four patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. Intraoperatively, one group received a continuous intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine alone, whereas the other received a continuous dexmedetomidine infusion plus a small dose of midazolam. Early measurements of patient anxiety and psychomotor performance were lower in patients who had received midazolam. This difference was not seen later in the appointment. An amnesic effect was observed in those patients who received midazolam. This effect, however, did not translate into increased patient satisfaction in the group receiving midazolam. Our findings suggest a prolonged discharge time for patients who had been given midazolam that may be clinically significant. Overall, dexmedetomidine showed an unpredictable sedative response and may be less practical than more common alternatives for oral surgery procedures.Key Words: Dexmedetomidine; Anesthesiology; Oral surgery; Sedation; Third molars.A lpha-2 (a-2) adrenergic receptor agonists were first used as nasal decongestants but soon were valued for the treatment of hypertension and withdrawal symptoms. The sedative and amnesic qualities of clonidine, the prototypic representative of this drug class, fueled interest in its use as an anesthetic adjuvant. It was also quickly noted that, at sedative doses, the normal respiratory drive was unaffected when administered as an intravenous infusion.1-3 Dexmedetomidine (Precedex, Abbott Laboratories), the pharmacologically active dextroisomer of medetomidine, like clonidine, has an imidazoline structure and is a potent and selective agonist of the a-2 adrenoceptor. Compared with clonidine, dexmedetomidine shows 8 times greater selectivity for a-2 than a-1 receptors and is considered a full agonist. It has been used in veterinary anesthesiology for more than 20 years and has demonstrated dose-dependent sympatholytic, sedative, and analgesic properties in human volunteers. [4][5][6] Dexmedetomidine, when administered in the perioperative period, has been shown to reduce the dose requirements of other anesthetics and attenuate the sympathetic response to stressful events. [7][8][9][10]

No abstract

The placement of endotracheal tubes in the airway, particularly through the nose, can cause trauma. Their design might be an important etiologic factor, but they have changed little since their introduction. Recently Parker Medical ( Bridgewater, Conn ) introduced the Parker Flex-Tip ( PFT ) tube, suggesting that it causes less trauma. This study aimed to compare the PFT endotracheal tube to a sidebeveled, standard-tip endotracheal tube ( ETT ) for nasotracheal intubation ( Figures 1 and 2). Forty consecutive oral surgery patients requiring nasotracheal intubation were randomized to receive either a standard ETT or the PFT tube. Intubations were recorded using a fiber-optic camera positioned proximal to the Murphy eye of the tube. This allowed visualization of the path and action of the tube tip as it traversed the nasal, pharyngeal, laryngeal, and tracheal airway regions. Video recordings made during intubation and extubation were evaluated for bleeding, trauma, and intubation time. Both bleeding and trauma were recorded using a visual analogue scale ( VAS ) and by 3 different evaluators. The PFT received significantly better VAS values than the standard tubes from all 3 raters (P , 0.05) in both the extent of trauma and bleeding. Since the intubations were purposefully conducted slowly for photographic reasons, neither tube displayed a time advantage. This study suggests that the PFT tube design may be safer by causing less trauma and bleeding than standard tube designs for nasotracheal intubation.

Moderate intravenous (IV) sedation combined with local anesthesia is common for outpatient oral surgery procedures. An ideal sedative agent must be safe and well tolerated by patients and practitioners. This study evaluated fospropofol, a relatively new sedative/hypnotic, in comparison to midazolam, a commonly used benzodiazepine, for IV moderate sedation during oral and maxillofacial surgery. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to either the fospropofol or the midazolam group. Each participant received 1 μg/kg of fentanyl prior to administration of the selected sedative. Those in the fospropofol group received an initial dose of 6.5 mg/kg, with 1.6 mg/kg supplemental doses as needed. Those in the midazolam group received initial doses of 0.05 mg/kg, followed by 0.02 mg/kg supplemental doses. The quality of sedation in each patient was evaluated with regard to (a) onset of sedation, maintenance, and recovery profile; (b) patient and surgeon satisfaction; and (c) hemodynamic stability and adverse effects. The fospropofol group demonstrated shorter physical recovery times than midazolam patients, taking a mean of 11.6 minutes versus 18.4 minutes for physical recovery (P = .007). Cognitive recovery comparison did not find any difference with a mean of 7.5 minutes versus 8.8 minutes between the 2 drug groups (P = .123). The fospropofol group had a higher rate of local anesthetic injection recall (90.5 vs 44.4%, P = .004). Other parameters of recall were comparable. Two adverse effects demonstrated significance, with more patients in the midazolam group experiencing tachycardia (48.2 vs 9.4%, P = .001), and more patients in the fospropofol group experiencing perineal discomfort (40.6 vs 0, P < .001). No significant difference was found in any other measures of sedation safety, maintenance, or satisfaction. Fospropofol, when administered intravenously by a dentist anesthesiologist at the indicated dose in this study, appears to be a safe, well-tolerated alternative to midazolam for intravenous moderate sedation during minor oral surgery procedures.