Comparison of Post-Operative Analgesic Effects of Peritonsillar Infiltration of Dexmedetomidine, Lidocaine or Both in Children Following Tonsillectomy

Background: Peritonsillar infiltration of local anesthetics has efficient pain relief in children undergoing tonsillectomy. We hypothesize that lidocaine plus dexmedetomidine will potentiate the analgesic effect of each other rather than. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the analgesic effect of peritonsillar infiltration of lidocaine, dexmedetomidine, or lidocaine/dexmedetomidine on post-tonsillectomy pain. The primary outcome is the time of analgesia. The secondary outcomes are postoperative pain score, the effect of study medications on postoperative hemodynamic, and complications. Patients and Methods: Ninety patients were randomly allocated to three groups, 30 patients each. L group, patients received 2mg/kg lidocaine. D group, patients received 1 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine. LD group, patients received 1 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine plus 2 mg/kg lidocaine. Results: The time of the first analgesia request (h.) was longer in the LD group (13.70 ± 2.91) when compared with the L and D groups. Postoperative pain score was significantly lower in LD and D groups compared with the L group (P <0.05) On the other hand, there was a significantly lower median VAS score in the LD group when compared with the D group (P1 <0.05) Postoperative paracetamol consumption was significantly lower in LD group (0.55 ± 0.51 gm/24h) when compared with D and L groups (0.65 ± 0.59, 2.25 ± 0.44 gm/24h respectively). Conclusion: the use of lidocaine with dexmedetomidine is better than using each drug alone in decreasing posttonsillectomy pain and increasing the time to first request for analgesia with no significant postoperative side effects

Intravenous versus perineural dexamethasone in interscalene nerve block with levobupivacaine for shoulder and upper arm surgeries

Background: Interscalene brachial plexus block (IBPB) has gained importance for surgical purposes and pain management. It provides effective postoperative pain relief essential for patient comfort and early ambulation.Objective: To evaluate the effect of dexamethasone as adjuvant to levobupivacaine in ultrasound-guided IBPB in shoulder and upper arm surgeries, and which route, the perineural or the intravenous was more effective.Patients and methods: Ninety patients randomly allocated into 3 equal groups: Group L: received IBPB with 20 ml of 0.5% levobupivacaine plus 2 ml normal saline (NS) with intravenous (iv) 10 ml NS. Group LDP: received IBPB with 20 ml of 0.5% levobupivacaine plus dexamethasone 4 mg diluted in 2 ml NS with iv 10 ml NS. Group LDIV: received IBPB with 20 ml of 0.5% levobupivacaine plus 2 ml NS with iv dexamethasone 4 mg diluted in 10 ml NS.Results: Patients in group LDP took prolonged time to ask for the first request for analgesia compared with patients in group L and group LDIV (15.57±3.89 vs 13.23±2.65 and 13.57±3.22, respectively) (p=0.007 and p=0.02, respectively), but no significant difference between group L and group LDIV (p=0.696). Pethidine consumption was significantly increased in patients of group L compared with patients in group LDP and group LDIV (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively), but no significant difference in pethidine dose between group LDP and group LDIV (p=0.283).Conclusion: This study concluded that the addition of dexamethasone as an adjuvant to perineural levobupivacaine for IBPB prolonged the duration of analgesia, decreased the postoperative pain score, decreased pethidine consumption and improved patient satisfaction

Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine in ultrasound fascia iliaca compartment block in proximal end femur surgeries

Background: Fracture neck femur is a common cause of hospital admission among the elderly population. Many patients admitted with fracture femur have long-standing cardiac, hepatic or renal problems. This makes a challenge to balance adequate analgesia with side effects of opioids. Fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) is one of the peripheral nerve block techniques. It became widely used in providing postoperative analgesia for patient with fracture neck femur either in emergency department or in the operating room.Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of addition of dexmedetomidine to bupivacaine on the duration and quality of postoperative analgesia in ultrasound guided fascia iliaca compartment block in proximal end femur surgeries.Patients and methods: Sixty patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I - II of both sexes aged from 20-60 years scheduled for proximal end femur surgeries. They were randomly assigned to one of two equal groups (n=30 each), using closed envelope technique: Bupivacaine group (B group), and Bupivacaine + dexmedetomidine (BD group). Result: Our study demonstrated prolongation of postoperative analgesia in bupivacaine-dexmedetomidine group (BD) compared to bupivacaine group (B). It showed statistically significant reduction in cumulative pethidine doses and prolongation in the time till first rescue analgesic is required in the BD group in comparison with the B group in the first 24 hours. Hemodynamic changes and incidence of side effects, were statistically insignificant among the two groups. Conclusion: Addition of dexmedetomidine, as an adjuvant to the local anesthetic bupivacaine, in ultrasound fascia iliaca compartment block provides prolongation of the duration of postoperative analgesia with less opioid consumption without remarkable side effects

Analgesic Effect of Intra-Articular Dexamethasone versus Fentanyl added as an adjuvant to Bupivacaine for Postoperative Pain Relief in Knee Arthroscopic Surgery

Background: Knee arthroscopy is usually associated with a variable degree of pain ranging from moderate-to-severe pain in about 70% of patients. Objective: This trial was designed to assess the efficacy of intra-articular administration of dexamethasone versus fentanyl as adjuncts to bupivacaine in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery. Patients and methods: Eighty-nine patients of either sex were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly divided into three equal groups. Group F that received intra-articular (IA) injection of 1 μg/kg fentanyl (In 2 ml saline) added to 18 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine, group D, which received IA injection of 8 mg (2 ml) dexamethasone added to 18mL of 0.25% bupivacaine and group S that received IA injection of 2 ml normal saline added to 18 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine. Results: The time required for the first request of analgesia in group F, group D, and group S was 5.7 ± 0.7 vs 4.5 ± 0.5 vs 3.3 ± 0.5 hours respectively. There were significant differences between both treatment groups and the control group (p < 0.001) and in between both treatment groups (p < 0.001) in favor of group F. There was a significantly lower median visual analogue score in group F when compared to group D and S at 6 hours (p = 0.006 & 0.01, respectively), 12 hours (p < 0.001 & < 0.001, respectively), and 18 hours (p = 0.003 & 0.007, respectively) postoperatively. Conclusion: The addition of fentanyl or dexamethasone to IA bupivacaine in knee arthroscopic surgery provided a better quality of analgesia with less consumption of systemic analgesics without significant adverse effects

Efficacy of ketamine in prevention of agitation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging under face mask sevoflurane: A randomized trial

Background: Emergence agitation (EA) is a common distressing problem in children after sevoflurane general anesthesia. The aim of the present study was to test the efficacy of ketamine in prevention of EA after sevoflurane general anesthesia in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. Also, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of the face mask for administration of sevoflurane anesthesia in children. Methods: In this randomized study, 120 children aged 2–7 years (ASA I or II) of either sex scheduled for elective MRI scan under sevoflurane anesthesia were enrolled in the study protocol. Patients were randomly allocated to one of 3 groups: saline group receiving normal saline (n = 40), ketamine 0.25 group receiving 0.25 mg/kg of ketamine intravenously 10 min prior the end of the procedure (n = 40), and ketamine 1.0 group receiving 1.0 mg/kg of ketamine intravenously before sevoflurane induction, (n = 40). Anesthesia was provided with sevoflurane in 100% oxygen. EA score, pausing of the scan, scan time, discharge time and any reported adverse events were recorded. Results: No significant differences as regards age, weight, sex, or ASA score were found among the studied groups. Children in ketamine 1.0 group reported significant lower EA score in comparison with ketamine 0.25 and saline groups (P < 0.05). Ketamine 0.25 group reported significant lower EA score in comparison with saline group (P < 0.05). Children in ketamine 1.0 group reported significant lower incidence of pausing in comparison with ketamine 0.25 and saline groups (P < 0.05). No significant differences as regards nausea, vomiting, desaturation, scan and discharge times among the studied groups (P < 0.05) were found. Conclusion: Ketamine premedication was effective in reducing EA without delay in recovery and significantly reduced the incidence of pausing of MRI scan

Spinal vs. general anesthesia for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A prospective randomized trial

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of general anesthesia (GA) vs. spinal anesthesia (SA) in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Methods: Two hundred patients were enrolled in a prospective randomized study to receive either GA or SA for PCNL. Patients’ characteristics, vital parameters, visual analog scale (VAS) and needs for additional analgesia were evaluated. Intraoperative and post-operative complications were recorded. Patients’ and surgeons’ satisfactions were also compared. Results: Vital parameters were maintained at safe values throughout procedures in both groups. Visual analog pain score was lower in SA group till 1 h postoperative in comparison with GA group (P < 0.05). Patients in SA group recorded lower consumption of analgesia in the 1st postoperative day in comparison with GA group (P < 0.05). Postoperative shivering was higher in SA group than GA group (8% vs. 2%) while nausea and vomiting was higher in GA group than SA group (5% vs. 2% and 4% vs. 1% respectively). Patients in GA group reported higher overall satisfaction scores than SA group (mean 9.6 ± 0.4 vs. 8.6 ± 0.8, P < 0.05). Similarly, surgeon’ satisfaction score was higher in favor of GA group compared with SA group (mean 10 ± 00 vs. 8.3 ± 0.4, P < 0.05). Conclusions: Both GA and SA are effective and safe in PCNL. SA has fewer complications and lower consumption of analgesia postoperatively. However, GA provides more satisfaction for patients and surgeon

Postoperative analgesia after major abdominal surgery: Fentanyl–bupivacaine patient controlled epidural analgesia versus fentanyl patient controlled intravenous analgesia

Background: Major abdominal surgeries induce neurohumoral changes responsible for postoperative pain, various organ dysfunctions and prolonged hospitalization. Inadequate pain control is harmful and costly to patients thus an appropriate pain therapy to those patients must be applicated. Methods: One hundred patients (ASA I or II) of either sex aged from 20 to 60 years were scheduled for elective major abdominal surgery. Patients were allocated randomly into two groups (fifty patients each) to receive: patient-controlled epidural analgesia with bupivacaine 0.125% and fentanyl (PCEA group), or patient controlled intravenous analgesia with fentanyl (PCIA group). Postoperative pain was assessed over 24 h using Numerical Pain Rating scale (NPRS). The frequency of rescue analgesia, sedation score and overall patient satisfaction were recorded. Any concomitant events like nausea; vomiting, shivering, pruritus or respiratory complications were recorded postoperatively. Results: There was a significant less pain in PCEA group at 2, 8 and 12 h. postoperative but PCIA group had less pain at immediate postoperative time. As regard sedation scale, patients of the PCEA group were significantly less sedated than PCIA group at immediate postoperative only. Overall patient satisfaction was significantly more in PCEA group. Conclusion: This study concluded that both PCEA and PCIA were effective in pain relief after major abdominal surgery but PCEA was much better in pain relief, less sedating effect and overall patient satisfaction

Efficacy of intrathecal dexmedetomidine in prevention of shivering in patients undergoing transurethral prostatectomy: A randomized controlled trial

Background: Shivering is a frequent complication following spinal anesthesia (SA). It is more common in transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) that may be due to absorption of large amount of irrigating fluids. We aimed to investigate the role of intrathecal dexmedetomidine in attenuation and prevention of shivering in patients undergoing TURP under SA. Methods: In a randomized, controlled trial, eighty patients were scheduled for elective TURP under SA. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: control group (group C): patients received 2.5 ml of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% plus 0.5 ml of normal saline and dexmedetomidine group (group D); patients received 2.5 ml of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5%, plus 10 μg dexmedetomidine in 0.5 ml of normal saline. Hemodynamic parameters, shivering score and any adverse effects were recorded. Results: The incidence of shivering was significantly reduced in group D, 6/40 patients (15%) compared with 23/40 patients (57%) in group C (P < 0.001). The frequency of bradycardia, hypotension, number of patients treated with meperidine and ephedrine were significantly higher in group D compared with group C (P = 0.048, P = 0.043, P = 0.011, P = 0.043) respectively. There was insignificant difference in the incidence of nausea, vomiting and TUR syndrome in patients in both groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Our results suggest that the use of 10 μg intrathecal dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing TURP has a noticeable control of shivering even in occurrence of tolerable side effects

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit