Search

Purpose: Endovascular cooling using the femoral cooling catheter is widely practiced. Central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring in patients undergoing femoral endovascular cooling may require the placement of another catheter near the right atrium (RA). We sought to estimate the agreement between the CVP recorded from catheters placed in the superior vena caval pressure (SVCP) and the inferior vena caval pressure (IVCP) recorded from the femoral cooling catheter in patients undergoing femoral endovascular cooling., Methods: We enrolled adult cardiac arrest survivors undergoing femoral endovascular cooling. A commercially available central venous catheter was placed in the SVC (superior vena cava) near the RA via subclavian venous access. Both SVCP and IVCP were recorded every 4 hours during therapeutic hypothermia. Arterial pressure, heart rate, peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), and positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) at the time of vena caval pressure measurements were obtained., Results: A total of 323 pairs of SVCP and IVCP measurements were collected. The correlation coefficient between SVCP and IVCP was 0.965 (P < .001). The mean difference between SVCP and IVCP was -0.45 mm Hg (SD, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, -0.59 to -0.31 mm Hg). The limits of agreement were -2.94 to 2.05 mm Hg. Vena caval pressures were significantly correlated with airway pressures (peak inspiratory pressure and positive end expiratory pressure), whereas the difference between SVCP and IVCP did not correlate with airway pressures., Conclusion: Inferior vena caval pressure measured via the femoral cooling catheter showed excellent agreement with CVP recorded from catheters placed in the SVC, which indicates that the femoral cooling catheter can be used for monitoring CVP., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The preemptive intravenous and intraperitoneal application of local anesthetics is known to improve the postoperative outcome in abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic effect of intravenous lidocaine injection to that of intraperitoneal lidocaine instillation in patients who were undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy (LA)., Method: Sixty-eight patients who were undergoing LA for unperforated appendicitis were randomly divided into three groups. Group IP (the intraperitoneal instillation group) received intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine and intravenous normal saline injection. Group IV (the intravenous injection group) received intravenous lidocaine injection and intraperitoneal instillation of normal saline. In group C (the placebo control group), normal saline was given both intravenously and intraperitoneally. The visual analog scale (VAS) of pain scores was measured after surgery. The needs for additional intravenous fentanyl were evaluated and the integrated fentanyl consumption (PCA delivered + additional fentanyl) was assessed. The incidence of shoulder tip pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were noted., Results: Reduction of the VAS score and of fentanyl consumption was noted in the IV and IP groups and compared to that of group C (P < 0.05). The shoulder tip pain and PONV were reduced in groups IP and IV compared to that in group C (P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found between the IP and IV groups for all the studied variables. There was no adverse effect from intravenous lidocaine throughout the study., Conclusion: Intravenous lidocaine injection is as effective as intraperitoneal instillation for reducing pain and fentanyl consumption. The major benefit of intravenous injection is that this is an easily and universally applicable procedure compared to that of intraperitoneal instillation. Lidocaine intravenous administration is a better alternative for reducing the pain of patients who are undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA™) with the ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA-ProSeal™) in mechanically ventilated paralyzed patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery., Methods: One hundred and one patients were allocated randomly to SLIPA (n = 50) or to LMA-ProSeal (n = 51) treatment groups. After induction of general anesthesia and insertion of the assigned supralaryngeal airway (SLA) device, we made note of the occurrence of any gastric insufflation and perilaryngeal leakage. We then evaluated the anatomical fit of the SLA device using a fibreoptic bronchoscope, and we assessed the airway sealing pressure and respiratory mechanics with change in head position and during peritoneal insufflation. After surgery, we evaluated the severity of postoperative sore throat and the presence of blood or regurgitated fluid on the SLA device., Results: The insertion success rate, gastric insufflation, perilaryngeal leakage, anatomical fit, airway sealing pressure, respiratory mechanics, severity of sore throat, and incidence of blood and regurgitated fluid on the device were similar between the two groups. The incidence of perilaryngeal leakage with changes in the patient's head position was lower with the SLIPA group than with the LMA-ProSeal group (3/50 vs 11/51, respectively; P = 0.026). During peritoneal insufflation, perilaryngeal leakage did not occur with the SLIPA but occurred in four cases with the LMA-ProSeal (P = 0.045)., Conclusion: Both the SLIPA and the LMA-ProSeal can be used effectively and without severe complications in paralyzed patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery. However, the SLIPA offers the advantage of less perilaryngeal gas leakage than the LMA-ProSeal with change in head position and during insufflation of the peritoneal cavity. This trial is registered with ANZCTR (ACTRN12609000914268).

It is not known whether changing from isoflurane to desflurane during the latter part of anesthesia shows early emergence and recovery in long surgery. We therefore evaluated the effects of changing isoflurane to desflurane on emergence and recovery. Eighty-two patients were randomly assigned to receive isoflurane (Group I) or desflurane (Group D) or to change from isoflurane to desflurane anesthesia (Group X). At the point when there was an hour until the operation would end, isoflurane was replaced with 1 MAC of desflurane in Group X, and isoflurane and desflurane were maintained at 1 MAC in Groups I and D. When the operation ended, we compared the emergence and recovery characteristics among the 3 groups. Compared with Group I, Group X showed faster emergence and recovery. Group X and Group D showed similar emergence and recovery. In conclusion, changing isoflurane to desflurane during the latter part of anesthesia improves emergence and recovery.