BackgroundNot only arterial hypoxemia but acute lung injury also has become the major concerns of one-lung ventilation (OLV). The use of pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) for OLV offers the potential advantages of lower airway pressure and intrapulmonary shunt, which result in a reduced risk of barotrauma and improved oxygenation, respectively.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials and KoreaMedto find publications comparing the effects of PCV with those of volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) during intraoperative OLV in adults. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed using the Cochrane Review Methods.ResultsSix studies (259 participants) were included. The PaO2/FiO2 ratio in PCV was higher than in VCV [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 11.04 mmHg, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.30 to 21.77, P = 0.04, I2 = 3 %] and peak inspiratory pressure was significantly lower in PCV (WMD = −4.91 cm H2O, 95 % CI = −7.30 to –2.53, P < 0.0001, I 2 = 91 %). No differences in PaCO2, tidal volume, heart rate and blood pressure were observed. There were also no differences incompliance, plateau and mean airway pressure.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis provided the evidence of improved oxygenation in PCV. However, it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions due to the fact that the duration of ventilation in the studies reviewed was insufficient to reveal clinically relevant benefits or disadvantages of PCV. Significantly lower peak inspiratory pressure is the advantage of PCV.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-016-0238-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe primary outcome of sugammadex reversal for rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block (NMB) is a train-of-four ratio (TOFR) of 0.9, not first twitch (T1) height. We investigated whether the recovery of TOFR or T1 differs based on the reversal of NMB with neostigmine or sugammadex.MethodsThe acceleromyographic responses from 0.6 mg/kg of rocuronium were monitored supramaximally in 80 patients after induction of anesthesia. The TOFR and T1 height were recorded, and saved in a personal computer using TOF-Watch SX Monitor software in all patients. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups to receive either neostigmine 50 µg/kg with glycopyrrolate 10 µg/kg (neostigmine group, n = 40) or sugammadex 2.0 mg/kg (sugammadex group, n = 40). The primary objective was to determine the difference of recovery time between TOFR to 0.9 and T1 to 0.9 after sugammadex or neostigmine administration during moderate rocuronium-induced NMB.ResultsThe recovery pattern of the TOFR 2 min after sugammadex administration was 1.0 or more, but that of T1 was less than 90% (T1 / control value) up to 6 min after drug was injected. The recovery pattern of TOFR and T1 was similar during the 20 min after reversal with neostigmine.ConclusionsIf you have not performed the T1 monitoring, both TOFR and T1 should be considered to confirm suitable recovery during the 6 min after reversal with sugammadex during rocuronium-induced moderate NMB.

Although anaphylactic shock during the perioperative period is rare, it can be lethal due to severe cardiovascular and respiratory collapse. Midazolam is generally used as premedication for relieving anxiety about the operation, and the danger of anaphylactic shock after intramuscular injection is not widely recognized. We report the first case of anaphylactic shock occurring during the perioperative period after intramuscular injection of midazolam. Since anaphylactic shock after intramuscular injection can be of slow onset, the operation should be delayed if an anaphylactic reaction is suspected, even if the symptoms are limited. In addition, anesthesiologists should be prepared for the occurrence of anaphylaxis at any time in the perioperative period.

No abstract