Induction of anesthesia in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: the hemodynamic and analgesic effects of ketamine

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective, randomized study was to evaluate the hemodynamic and analgesic effects of ketamine by comparing it with propofol starting at the induction of anesthesia until the end of sternotomy in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. INTRODUCTION: Anesthetic induction and maintenance may induce myocardial ischemia in patients with coronary artery disease. A primary goal in the anesthesia of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery is both the attenuation of sympathetic responses to noxious stimuli and the prevention of hypotension. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery were randomized to receive either ketamine 2 mg.kg-1 (Group K) or propofol 0.5 mg.kg-1 (Group P) during induction of anesthesia. Patients also received standardized doses of midazolam, fentanyl, and rocuronium in the induction sequence. The duration of anesthesia from induction to skin incision and sternotomy, as well as the supplemental doses of fentanyl and sevoflurane, were recorded. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure, pulmonary arterial pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, cardiac index, systemic and pulmonary vascular resistance indices, stroke work index, and left and right ventricular stroke work indices were obtained before induction of anesthesia; one minute after induction; one, three, five, and ten minutes after intubation; one minute after skin incision; and at one minute after sternotomy. RESULTS: There were significant changes in the measured and calculated hemodynamic variables when compared to their values before induction. One minute after induction, mean arterial pressure and the systemic vascular resistance index decreased significantly in group P (

Clinical Study The Effect of Peritubal Infiltration with Bupivacaine and Morphine on Postoperative Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Objective. We aimed to investigate the effect of peritubal local anesthetic and opioid infiltration on pain scores and analgesic consumption in patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Material and Methods. Patients aged between 18 and 65 years and ASA I-III were included in this double-blind, randomized study. The patients were divided into two groups. All patients underwent spinoepidural anesthesia. 20 mL of 0.25 percent bupivacaine + 5 mg morphine (0.5 mL), in Group P ( = 66), infiltrated the renal capsule, perinephric fat, muscles, subcutaneous tissue, and skin under fluoroscopy. In Group C ( = 64), none of the patients received a peritubal injection. In the first 24 h pain scores, time of the first analgesic demand, the mean number of analgesic demands, and postoperative complications were compared between groups. Results. The mean VAS score at postoperative 8, 12, and 24 h and dynamic VAS score at postoperative 4, 8, 12, and 24 h were significantly lower in Group P. VAS score at postoperative 4 h was not significant. Time of the first analgesic demand was significantly longer in Group P. Conclusion. Our study results suggest that peritubal infiltration of bupivacaine with morphine after percutaneous nephrolithotomy is an effective method for postoperative pain control and reduces analgesic consumption

The Effect of Peritubal Infiltration with Bupivacaine and Morphine on Postoperative Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Objective. We aimed to investigate the effect of peritubal local anesthetic and opioid infiltration on pain scores and analgesic consumption in patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Material and Methods. Patients aged between 18 and 65 years and ASA I-III were included in this double-blind, randomized study. The patients were divided into two groups. All patients underwent spinoepidural anesthesia. 20 mL of 0.25 percent bupivacaine + 5 mg morphine (0.5 mL), in Group P (n=66), infiltrated the renal capsule, perinephric fat, muscles, subcutaneous tissue, and skin under fluoroscopy. In Group C (n=64), none of the patients received a peritubal injection. In the first 24 h pain scores, time of the first analgesic demand, the mean number of analgesic demands, and postoperative complications were compared between groups. Results. The mean VAS score at postoperative 8, 12, and 24 h and dynamic VAS score at postoperative 4, 8, 12, and 24 h were significantly lower in Group P. VAS score at postoperative 4 h was not significant. Time of the first analgesic demand was significantly longer in Group P. Conclusion. Our study results suggest that peritubal infiltration of bupivacaine with morphine after percutaneous nephrolithotomy is an effective method for postoperative pain control and reduces analgesic consumption

Pre-emptive infiltration of levobupivacaine is superior to at-closure administration in lumbar laminectomy patients

This is a prospective, randomized, controlled trial that compared the efficacy of different protocols of local tissue infiltration with levobupivacaine or levobupivacaine-methylprednisolone at the surgical site for pain relief after lumbar discectomy. The objective of the study was to determine the efficacy of preemptive wound infiltration with levobupivacaine and levobupivacaine-methylprednisolone at the surgical site for pain relief. Patients usually suffer significant pain after lumbar discectomy. Wound infiltration with local anesthetics with or without corticosteroids is one method to address this. A total of 100 patients were randomly allocated to five equal groups as follows: Group I had the musculus multifidi near the operated level infiltrated with 30 mL 0.25% levobupivacaine and 40 mg methylprednisolone just before wound closure; Group II had the same region infiltrated with 30 mL 0.25% levobupivacaine alone before closure; Group III had this region infiltrated with 30 mL 0.25% levobupivacaine and 40 mg methylprednisolone before the incision was made; in Group IV this region was infiltrated with 30 mL 0.25% levobupivacaine alone before incision; and in Group C (controls) this region was infiltrated with 30 mL 0.9% NaCl just before wound closure. Demographics, vital signs, postoperative pain scores and morphine usage were recorded. All four treatment groups showed significantly better results than the control group for most parameters. The treated groups had lower parenteral opioid requirements after surgery, lower incidences of nausea and shorter hospital stays. Further, the data indicate that, compared with infiltration of these drugs at wound closure, preemptive injection of levobupivacaine or levobupivacaine-methylprednisolone into the muscle near the operative site provides more effective analgesia after lumbar discectomy. Our data suggest that preemptive infiltration of the wound site with levobupivacaine alone or combined with methylprednisolone provides effective pain control with reduced opiate dose after unilateral lumbar discectomy