The Effect of Preoperative Anxiety and Pain Sensitivity on Preoperative Hemodynamics, Propofol Consumption, and Postoperative Recovery and Pain in Endoscopic Ultrasonography

INTRODUCTION

The present study investigates how preoperative anxiety and pain sensitivity affect the consumption of anesthetics, time elapsed until the desired sedation level is achieved, preoperative hemodynamics, postoperative recovery time, and postoperative pain.

METHODS

The present study includes 80 ASA 1-2 patients aged between 20 and 65 who were scheduled for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) under sedation. Patients were instructed to fill out the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire (PSQ) before the procedure. For sedation, 0.03 mg  kg^-1 intravenous midazolam, 1 mg  kg^-1 lidocaine, 1 µ kg^-1 fentanyl, and then a bolus dose of 1 mg kg^-1 propofol were infused over a period of 60 s. The time elapsed until the bispectral index (BIS) value reached 75 was recorded. For anesthesia maintenance, 2 mg  kg^-1 h^-1 propofol infusion was administered. In the case of sedation failure, an additional dose of 0.1 mg  kg^-1 propofol (IV) was administered to ensure sedation depth with a BIS level of 65-75, and the propofol infusion was halted once the BIS value dropped below 65.

RESULTS

STAI-S and STAI-T scores were significantly positively correlated with PSQ minor pain and PSQ total scores. The time elapsed until reaching a BIS level of 75, propofol infusion dose used during sedation, and the need for additional doses of propofol, heart rate (HR), and duration of post-anesthesia care unit stay were significantly positively correlated with both preoperative anxiety and preoperative pain sensitivity. In terms of postoperative pain, the visual analog scale (VAS) at 1 h was more highly correlated with STAI-S and STAI-T than with PSQ. The VAS 2 h was only correlated with STAI-S and STAI-T.

CONCLUSION

The significant linear correlation between preoperative anxiety and pain sensitivity and anesthesia need can facilitate better preoperative management by predicting individual anesthetic consumption.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered with the number NCT03114735 on ClinicalTrials.gov.

[Midazolam/fentanyl vs propofol/remifentanil in immediate postoperative with short-term mechanical ventilation]

OBJECTIVES

Compare between 2sedoanalgesia regimes, the time from withdrawal of the medication until the patient wakes up and until extubation.

METHODOLOGY

Observational study on pediatric patients after elective surgery that needed mechanical ventilation for a period maximum to 72hours. We compared 2independent groups of patients: group A: patients collected prospectively who received sedoanalgesia with propofof-remifentanil and group B: patients who received midazolam-fentanyl collected retrospectively by reviewing medical records and database of the unit. The main variables studied were: Age, weight, sex, interventions type, sedoanalgesia scales, drugs dosages, time from withdrawal of medication to awakening and extubation, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

We collected 82 patients, 43 in group A and 39 in group B. Age (arithmetical mean±standard deviation of patients were 49±65 months, weight 17±16kg. Mechanical ventilation time medium was 22hours (3-72), wake-up time from withdrawal after removing sedoanalgesia was of 11,8±10,6minutes group A and 137,3±45minutes group B (P<.001), extubation time after removing sedoanalgesia was of 24±21minutes group A and 230±102minutes group B (P<.001). Adverse effects were found in 10.5% of patients group A (7.9% agitation, 2.6% bradycardia), and 13% of patients group B (respiratrory depression after extubation), P=.572.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with propofol-remifentanil have significantly shorter times to wake up, extubation and withdrawal from mechanical ventilation after stopping the medication. In the midazolam-fentanyl group, respiratory depression was more frequent, although the percentage of adverse effects were similar in both groups. Both the combination of propofol-remifentanil and midazolam-fentanyl appear to be effective as a sedative-analgesic regimen for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation after surgery.

Day care bipolar transurethral resection vs photoselective vaporisation under sedoanalgesia: A prospective, randomised study of the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia

Objective

To conduct a prospective randomised study comparing the safety, effectiveness and treatment outcomes in patients undergoing bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (bTURP) and photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) under sedoanalgesia, as sedoanalgesia is a safe and effective technique suitable for minimally invasive endourological procedures and although studies have confirmed that both TURP and PVP are feasible under sedoanalgesia there are none comparing the two.

Patients and methods

Between November 2014 and April 2016, all patients satisfying the eligibility criteria underwent either bTURP or PVP under sedoanalgesia after randomisation. The groups were compared for functional outcomes, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores (range 0–10), perioperative variables and complications, with a follow-up of 3 months.

Results

In all, 42 and 36 patients underwent bTURP and PVP under sedoanalgesia, respectively. The mean VAS pain score was <2 at any time during the procedure, with no conversions to general anaesthesia. PVP patients had a shorter operating time [mean (SD) 55.64 (12.8) vs 61.79 (14.2) min, P = 0.035], shorter duration of hospitalisation [mean (SD) 14.58 (2.81) vs 19.21 (2.82) h, P < 0.001] and a higher dysuria rate when compared to bTURP patients. However, the catheterisation time was similar and both intraoperative and postoperative complications were minimal and comparable. Improvements in the International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life, prostate volume, maximum urinary flow rate and post-void residual urine volume at 3 months were similar in both groups. None of our patients required re-admission or re-operation.

Conclusion

Both PVP and bTURP can be carried out safely under sedoanalgesia with excellent treatment outcomes.

Thyroidectomy Under Regional Anaesthesia: An ORL Perspective

BACKGROUND

The use of regional anaesthesia as an effective alternative to general anaesthesia in thyroid surgeries is now being accepted in many parts of the world. In this day of computers and technology, there is an increased awareness among the people of the available options of anaesthesia and the adverse effects of general anaesthesia. They thus have an inclination to avoid general anaesthesia wherever feasible. This study dwells on the use of regional anaesthesia as an alternative tool that can be offered to the patients undergoing thyroidectomy.

AIMS

This study aims at analysing the effectiveness, safety, ease and patient acceptability of performing thyroidectomies under regional anaesthesia.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

This prospective study was performed at a university - affiliated hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty nine patients who underwent thyroidectomy for benign thyroid diseases under regional anaesthesia were included in this study: 20 patients under deep cervical plexus block and 9 patients under cervical epidural anaesthesia.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Z-test and validity test.

RESULTS

In our study, all the 29 patients who underwent thyroidectomy under regional anaesthesia found the anaesthesia effective and were comfortable throughout the procedure. The surgeon too was at ease while performing the surgery. No complications were recorded.

CONCLUSION

In our present study, regional anaesthesia (Cervical epidural anaesthesia and Cervical plexus block) has been used safely and effectively in 29 thyroid surgeries. We conclude that although regional anaesthesia has been reserved for high risk thyroidectomies it may be offered as effective alternative to general anaesthesia even in routine thyroid surgeries.