Background: The direct entry of the camera under the epiglottis may provide a better view of the glottis than the indirect lifting of the epiglottis by placing the Macintosh blade tip on the vallecula when using the video laryngoscope. This study aimed to compare the efficiency of two different methods of lifting the epiglottis during the visualization of glottis using video laryngoscopy in the same patient.Methods: This prospective study enrolled 60 patients who underwent general anesthesia with tracheal intubation. In each patient, glottic views were obtained by directly (group DE) and indirectly lifting the epiglottis (group IE). These two methods were compared using the modified Cormack and Lehane grade and the percentage of glottis opening (POGO) score as assessment parameters.Results: Modified Cormack and Lehane grade showed significant difference between the groups DE and IE (P = 0.004). The difference in the POGO score between the groups DE and IE was also statistically significant (87.5% and 64.4%, respectively; P < 0.001).Conclusions: Our results, therefore, revealed that the method of directly lifting epiglottis was better at exposing glottis than the method of indirectly lifting epiglottis using a video laryngoscope.

BackgroundPostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications after anesthesia and surgery. This study was designed to compare the effects of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV in high-risk patients receiving intravenous opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) after gynecological laparoscopic surgery.MethodsOne hundred non-smoking female patients scheduled for gynecological laparoscopic surgery were randomly assigned into the palonosetron group (n = 50) or the ondansetron group (n = 50). Palonosetron 0.075 mg was injected as a bolus in the palonosetron group. Ondansetron 8 mg was injected as a bolus and 16 mg was added to the IV-PCA in the ondansetron group. The incidences of nausea, vomiting and side effects was recorded at 2 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h, postoperatively.ResultsThere were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of PONV during 72 h after operation. However, the incidence of vomiting was lower in the palonosetron group than in the ondansetron group (18% vs. 4%, P = 0.025). No differences were observed in use of antiemetics and the side effects between the groups.ConclusionsThe effects of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV were similar in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery and receiving opioid-based IV-PCA.

No abstract

Background: Interscalene brachial plexus block (ISBPB) is commonly used with general anesthesia for postoperative pain management in shoulder surgery. This study investigated the incidence of hypothermia and changes in the body temperature in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery under ISBPB with propofol sedation.Methods: This retrospective study enrolled 220 patients who underwent arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Patients were divided into general anesthesia (n = 34) and ISBPB with propofol sedation (n = 186) groups, and medical records were retrospectively compared. In addition, patients from the ISBPB group were further divided according to age (elderly, [≥ 65 years]; n = 98 vs. young, [< 65 years]; n = 88), and the incidence of hypothermia and changes in the body temperature were compared. Results: Twenty-seven patients (12.3%) experienced perioperative hypothermia (range; 35.3–35.9℃). The incidence of perioperative hypothermia was 29.4% and 9.1% in the general anesthesia and ISBPB groups, respectively, and there was a significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.002). The incidence of perioperative hypothermia according to age in the ISBPB group was 9.2% and 9.1% in the elderly and young groups, respectively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.983).Conclusions: The incidence of perioperative hypothermia during arthroscopic shoulder surgery under ISBPB with propofol sedation is lower than that under general anesthesia. Furthermore, when using ISBPB with propofol sedation, the incidence of perioperative hypothermia in elderly patients is similar to that in younger patients.

Background and Objectives: In patients with severe aortic stenosis (sAS), it is crucial to maintain hemodynamic stability during the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). In this study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in maintaining hemodynamic stability during anesthetic induction and maintenance. Cases: TAVI was performed on seven patients with sAS, and remimazolam was administered for total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) of general anesthesia with induction (3.0 mg/kg/h) and maintenance (1.0 mg/kg/h). All patients underwent TAVI without major hemodynamic concerns and later recovered. Conclusions: Remimazolam can be safely used for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in patients with sAS when performing TAVI