METHODS: In this prospective study, 48 patients scheduled for elective laparotomy were randomized to two groups of preemptive analgesia, namely, group K-P, in which anestheologists administered a combination of 0.3 mg/kg IV ketamine and 40.0 mg IV parecoxib, or group K, in which ones gave 0.3 mg/kg IV ketamine alone. Patients from both groups underwent surgery under general anesthesia, and total intraoperative opioid requirement was recorded. After surgery, morphine administered by automated patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) infusion device was initiated in all patients. Pain score was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS), and postoperative opioid requirement was recorded at 1 and 4 hours, and subsequently from 4-hour intervals up to 24 hours after surgery.
RESULTS: Compared to group K, group K-P required significantly lower rescue IV fentanyl in the recovery bay (0.10 ± 0.28 vs. 0.35 ± 0.46 μg/kg; P = 0.031), showing prolonged time-to-first analgesic request recorded by PCA device (70.8 ± 40.0 vs. 22.2 ± 15.8 mins; P ＜ 0.001), lower total morphine requirement delivered by PCA device (8.0 ± 4.6 vs. 16.8 ± 6.5 mg; P ＜ 0.001), and lower VAS values measured at all time points. There was no significant difference in intraoperative total opioid requirement between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Among laparotomy patients, multimodal preemptive analgesia by the use of a combination of low-dose IV ketamine and IV parecoxib was more effective than IV ketamine alone in reducing pain scores and postoperative analgesia requirement (e.g., PCA-administered morphine).
METHODS: A total of 93 patients with American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II having lower limb orthopaedic surgery under spinal anaesthesia were randomised into two groups that received either Volulyte (n = 47) or Gelaspan (n = 46). Before the spinal anaesthesia, these patients were pre-loaded with 500 mL of the fluid of their respective group. Blood samples were taken before pre-loading and again after spinal anaesthesia and sent for venous blood gas and electrolyte level measurement. Baseline and intraoperative records of systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and the requirement of ephedrine to treat hypotension were also recorded.
RESULTS: Both fluids could not prevent significant reductions in SBP (P = 0.011), DBP (P = 0.002) and MAP (P = 0.001). There was also significant reduction in HR over time (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in terms of ephedrine usage between both groups. Neither Volulyte 6% nor Gelaspan 4% caused significant changes in acid-base status.
CONCLUSION: The use of 500 mL of either Gelaspan 4% or Volulyte 6% as pre-loading fluids did not significantly prevent the incidence of post-spinal anaesthesia hypotension following orthopaedic lower limb surgery; however, both were useful in the maintenance normal acid-base balance.
Methods: Sixty-six severe TBI patients who required emergency craniotomy or craniectomy and were planned for post-operative ventilation were randomised into NS (n = 33) and BF therapy groups (n = 33). The calculation of maintenance fluid given was based on the Holliday-Segar method. The electrolytes and acid-base parameters were assessed at an 8 h interval for 24 h. The data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA.
Results: The NS group showed a significant lower base excess (-3.20 versus -1.35, P = 0.049), lower bicarbonate level (22.03 versus 23.48 mmol/L, P = 0.031), and more hyperchloremia (115.12 versus 111.74 mmol/L, P < 0.001) and hypokalemia (3.36 versus 3.70 mmol/L, P < 0.001) than the BF group at 24 h of therapy. The BF group showed a significantly higher level of calcium (1.97 versus 1.79 mmol/L, P = 0.003) and magnesium (0.94 versus 0.80 mmol/L, P < 0.001) than the NS group at 24 h of fluid therapy. No significant differences were found in pH, pCO2, lactate, and sodium level.
Conclusion: BF therapy showed better effects in maintaining higher electrolyte parameters and reducing the trend toward hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis than the NS therapy during prolonged fluid therapy for postoperative TBI patients.
Methods: Sixty patients aged 18-70 years old who underwent elective surgeries involving endotracheal intubation were randomised into three groups of equal size: i) control; ii) dexmedetomidine and iii) esmolol. Heart rate (HR) was measured at baseline (T0), after drug administration (T1), after induction of anaesthesia (T2), immediately after intubation (T3), and 3 min, 5 min and 10 min after intubation (T4, T5 and T6). BG was measured pre-operatively and 30 min post-intubation.
Results: Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance showed significant time [within-group changes, F(3.2, 182.5) = 30.39, P < 0.001], treatment [between-group differences regardless of time, F(2, 57) = 50.24, P < 0.001] and interaction [between-group differences based on time, F(6.4, 182.5) = 37.65, P < 0.001] effects on HR. A significantly higher HR was observed in the control group compared to the dexmedetomidine and esmolol groups from T2 to T6. BG exhibited a significant time effect [F(1, 57) = 41.97, P < 0.001] with no significant treatment and interaction effects. All three groups showed a significant increase in BG from baseline.
Conclusion: Both dexmedetomidine and esmolol are equally effective in attenuating haemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and intubation. However, both do not significantly modulate neuroendocrine stress.