Impact of the practising anesthesiologist team member on the laryngeal mask cuff pressures and adverse event rate

OBJECTIVE: We have planned to evaluate the laryngeal mask cuff pressures (LMcp) inflated by anesthesia workers of several seniority, without using manometer. METHODS: 180 patients scheduled to have short duration surgery with laryngeal mask were included in the study. Five anesthesia specialists (Group S), 10 residents (Group R) and 6 technicians (Group T) inflated the LMc; thereafter LMcp were measured with pressure manometer. Participants have repeated this practice in at least five different cases. LMcp higher than 60 cm H2O at the initial placement or intraoperative period were adjusted to normal range. Sore throat was questioned postoperatively. Groups were compared in terms of mean LMcp and occupational experience. RESULTS: At the settlement of LM, LMcp pressures within the normal range were determined in 26 (14.4%) cases. Mean LMcp after LM placement in Group S, R and T were 101.2 ± 14.0, 104.3 ± 20.5 cm H2O and 105.2 ± 18.4 cm H2O respectively (p > 0.05). Mean LMcp values in all measurement time periods within the groups were above the normal limit (60 cm H2O). When groups were compared in terms of LMcp, no difference has been found among pressure values. Occupational experience was 14.2 ± 3.9; 3.3 ± 1.1 and 6.6 ± 3.8 years for specialists, residents and technicians respectively and measured pressure values were not different in regard of occupational experience. Seven (3.9%) patients had sore throat at the 24th hour interview. CONCLUSION: Considering lower possibility of normal adjustment of LMcp and ineffectiveness of occupational experience to obtain normal pressure values, it is suitable that all anesthesia practitioners should adjust LMcp with manometer

Rectal dexmedetomidine in rats: evaluation of sedative and mucosal effects

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this study, we investigated the anesthetic and mucosal effects of the rectal application of dexmedetomidine to rats. METHODS: Male Wistar albino rats weighing 250-300 g were divided into four groups: Group S (n = 8) was a sham group that served as a baseline for the normal basal values; Group C (n = 8) consisted of rats that received the rectal application of saline alone; Group IPDex (n = 8) included rats that received the intraperitoneal application of dexmedetomidine (100 &#181;g kg-1); and Group RecDex (n = 8) included rats that received the rectal application of dexmedetomidine (100 &#181;g kg-1). For the rectal drug administration, we used 22 G intravenous cannulas with the stylets removed. We administered the drugs by advancing the cannula 1 cm into the rectum, and the rectal administration volume was 1 mL for all the rats. The latency and anesthesia time (min) were measured. Two hours after rectal administration, 75 mg kg-1 ketamine was administered for intraperitoneal anesthesia in all the groups, followed by the removal of the rats' rectums to a distal distance of 3 cm via an abdominoperineal surgical procedure. We histopathologically examined and scored the rectums. RESULTS: Anesthesia was achieved in all the rats in the Group RecDex following the administration of dexmedetomidine. The onset of anesthesia in the Group RecDex was significantly later and of a shorter duration than in the Group IPDEx (p < 0.05). In the Group RecDex, the administration of dexmedetomidine induced mild-moderate losses of mucosal architecture in the colon and rectum, 2 h after rectal inoculation. CONCLUSION: Although 100 &#181;g kg-1 dexmedetomidine administered rectally to rats achieved a significantly longer duration of anesthesia compared with the rectal administration of saline, our histopathological evaluations showed that the rectal administration of 100 &#181;g kg-1 dexmedetomidine led to mild-moderate damage to the mucosal structure of the rectum

ANESTHESIA INDUCTION WITH SEVOFLURANE AND PROPOFOL: EVALUATION OF P-WAVE DISPERSION, QT AND CORRECTED QT INTERVALS

WOS: 000282141300002PubMed: 20837343The present study compared the effects of anesthesia induction with sevoflurane and propofol on hemodynamics, P-wave dispersion (Pwd), QT interval and corrected QT (QTc) interval. A total of 72 adult patients were included in this prospective study. All patients had control electrocardiograms (ECGs) before anesthesia induction. Anesthesia was induced with sevoflurane inhalation or intravenous propofol. Electrocardiography for all patients was performed during the 1(St) and 3(rd) minutes of induction, 3 minutes after administration of muscle relaxant, and at 5 minutes and 10 minutes after intubation. Pwd and QT intervals were measured on all ECGs. QTc intervals were determined using the Bazett formula. There was no significant difference in Pwd and QT and QTc intervals on control ECGs. in the sevoflurane group, except for control ECGs, Pwd and QTc interval on all ECGs were significantly longer than those in the propofol group (p<0.05). We conclude that propofol should be used for anesthesia induction in patients with a predisposition to preoperative arrhythmias, and in those whose Pwd and QTc durations are prolonged on preoperative ECGs