Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jul 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of dexamethasone, ondansetron, and dexamethasone plus ondansetron as prophylactic antiemetic and antipruritic therapy in patients receiving intrathecal morphine for major orthopedic surgery.
In a prospective, double-blinded, randomized trial, we evaluated the efficacy of IV (a) dexamethasone 8 mg, (b) ondansetron 8 mg, and (c) dexamethasone 8 mg plus ondansetron 4 mg for the prevention of postoperative nausea, vomiting (PONV), and pruritus in 130 (ASA physical status I to III) patients undergoing elective major orthopedic surgery after spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine and intrathecal morphine. After spinal anesthesia, patients were randomized to one of three groups. Failure of PONV prophylaxis in the 24-h postoperative period occurred more frequently in patients who received dexamethasone alone (29 of 40; 73%) compared with those who received either ondansetron alone (23 of 47; 49%) (P = 0.02) or dexamethasone plus ondansetron together (19 of 43; 44%)(P = 0.01). There was no difference in the incidence of failure of prophylaxis of pruritus (70%, 72%, and 70% in dexamethasone 8 mg, ondansetron 8 mg, and dexamethasone 8 mg plus ondansetron 4 mg, respectively) (P > 0.1) in the 24-h postoperative period. We conclude that the administration of dexamethasone 8 mg with ondansetron 4 mg has no added benefit compared with ondansetron 8 mg alone in the prophylaxis of PONV and pruritus. ⋯ Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pruritus are common side effects after spinal opioid administration. In this study, dexamethasone 8 mg plus ondansetron 4 mg was as effective as ondansetron 8 mg. The administration of dexamethasone alone was associated with a frequent incidence of PONV, demonstrating a lack of efficacy. This has important cost implications.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jul 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialSubarachnoid small-dose bupivacaine versus lidocaine for cervical cerclage.
Cervical cerclage is often performed as an outpatient procedure under subarachnoid anesthesia. Lidocaine was historically the drug of choice for short procedures but has fallen out of favor because of concerns of transient neurologic symptoms (TNS). We performed this study to determine whether small-dose bupivacaine is an acceptable alternative to lidocaine for cervical cerclage. We randomized 59 women to receive either subarachnoid isobaric lidocaine 30 mg or hyperbaric bupivacaine 5.25 mg. Fentanyl 20 micro g was added to both local anesthetics, and the total volume was diluted to 3 mL with 0.9% saline. Onset and highest dermatomal level of sensory block; quality of anesthesia; hypotension; and times until T12 regression, return of lower extremity motor function, ambulation, and micturition were recorded. Symptoms of TNS were evaluated by telephone interview 24 h after surgery. We did not find any significant difference in onset or recovery times between the groups, with the exception of a longer duration until return of lower extremity motor strength in the lidocaine group. Symptoms consistent with TNS that resolved spontaneously within 48 h were reported by two women in the lidocaine group but by none in the bupivacaine group. We conclude that subarachnoid bupivacaine offers a satisfactory alternative to subarachnoid lidocaine for cervical cerclage. ⋯ We found that small-dose subarachnoid bupivacaine (5.25 mg) with fentanyl 20 micro g provides reliable anesthesia for cervical cerclage and exhibits a pharmacodynamic profile similar to that of small-dose lidocaine.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jul 2003
Review GuidelineConsensus guidelines for managing postoperative nausea and vomiting.
We present evidence-based guidelines developed by an international panel of experts for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jul 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe effects of tracheal tube tip design and tube thickness on laryngeal pass ability during oral tube exchange with an introducer.
We compared the ease of passage through the glottis of two different tubes and two different sizes of tracheal tube exchanger (TE) during introducer-guided tracheal intubation. One tube was a polyvinyl chloride tube with a standard bevel, and the other was a newly designed tube with a hemispherical bevel. The outer diameters (OD) of the two TEs were 2.5 and 5.0 mm. After the standard induction of anesthesia, followed by vecuronium-induced paralysis, a TE was inserted into the trachea with a direct laryngoscope. By using the introducer as a guide, the tracheal tube was inserted into the trachea. The difficulty in passing the tube was assessed by a blinded observer and graded with a four-point scale. The newly designed tube was inserted more smoothly than was the conventional tube when the 2.5-mm-OD TE was used (P < 0.01). In situations such as those occurring after one-lung anesthesia, when use of a thicker TE is not applicable, this newly designed taper-tipped tube may be considered as an adjunct to oral tracheal tube exchange, using a thinner (smaller-OD) TE as the guide for tracheal intubation. ⋯ In situations such as after one-lung anesthesia, when use of a thicker tube exchanger (TE) is not applicable, a newly designed taper-tipped tube with the leading edge in the midline may be considered as an adjunct to an oral tracheal tube exchange, using a thinner TE as the guide for tracheal intubation.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jul 2003
Comparative Study Clinical TrialA prospective one-year outcome study of interdisciplinary chronic pain management: compromising its efficacy by managed care policies.
Although interdisciplinary pain management programs are both therapeutically effective as well as cost-effective, they are currently being underutilized because of managed care policies. We used this prospective comparison trial, with 1-yr follow-up of chronic pain patients, to demonstrate the short- and long-term efficacy of an interdisciplinary pain management program, and evaluate the impact of managed care's physical therapy "carve out" practices on these treatment outcomes. Consecutive chronic pain patients (n = 201) were evaluated, some of whom had their physical therapy "carved out" from this integrated program. Results revealed that successful completion of interdisciplinary pain management was therapeutically effective. Most importantly, physical therapy "carved out" practices had a negative impact on both the short-term and 1-yr follow-up outcome measures. Thus, interdisciplinary pain management is effective in treating the major health problem of chronic pain. However, insurance carrier policies of contracting treatment "carve outs" significantly compromise the efficacy of this evidence-based, best standard of medical care treatment. This raises important medico-legal and ethical issues. ⋯ Interdisciplinary pain management is effective and cost-effective in treating the major health problem of chronic pain. The present study demonstrated its efficacy using a prospective, 1-yr posttreatment evaluation methodology. Moreover, physical therapy "carve out" practices by insurance carriers had a negative impact on the outcomes, raising important medico-legal and ethical issues.