Search

Background: Hemodynamic stability is an important aspect to the anesthesiologist for patients. Laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation can cause striking changes in Hemodynamics as result of intense stimulation of sympathetic nervous system. ProSeal LMA (PLMA)minimizes this response without compromising the airway. The aim of this study was to compare PLMA and Endotracheal tube with respect to intra-operative hemodynamic responses in patients undergoing general anaesthesia. Material and Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted on 30 patients of either sex, age group of 18-60 years, ASA (I or II), Mallam Pati (I or II) posted for elective surgery under general anaesthesia. They were randomly divided into two group 15 each. For group A, airway was secured with laryngoscopy and intubation with appropriate size endotracheal tube and for group B, appropriate size PLMA was inserted to secure airway. The hemodynamic responses like Heart rate and Blood pressure were recorded at base line, at insertion, after 1st min, 3rd min, 5th min and after extubation. Mean increase was statistically more after endotracheal intubation than PLMA insertion. The elevation in theseResults: hemodynamic parameters signicantly persisted for a longer period of time in the ETT group, where it returned to the baseline value by 5 minutes as compared to the PLMA group where it returned by 3 minutes. The hemodynamic response produced when PLMA was used forConclusion: securing airway was less than the laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. Thus, PLMA proved to be a suitable alternative to endotracheal tube for airway management with stable hemodynamic.

Background: Chronic sinusitis, nasal polyps, and other sinus-related illnesses are common conditions that can be treated with endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). However, some patients may experience pain or discomfort after the procedure. Pre-emptive analgesia is a method used to reduce post-operative discomfort and the need for painkillers. Recently, there has been growing interest in studying the potential use of nalbuphine and dexmedetomidine as preventative analgesics in ESS. Aims and Objectives: This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of nalbuphine and dexmedetomidine in reducing post-operative pain and opiate use in ESS patients, a randomized controlled trial. Materials and Methods: Ninety patients were randomly selected and given nalbuphine, dexmedetomidine, or a placebo before anesthesia induction. Pain ratings, opioid use, and adverse effects were monitored during the post-operative period. Results: The results showed that both nalbuphine and dexmedetomidine significantly reduced post-operative pain ratings and opioid usage compared to the placebo. Dexmedetomidine was found more effective than nalbuphine in reducing pain, and patients who received it experienced less nausea and vomiting in the first few days after surgery. However, the occurrence of sedation or respiratory depression was not significantly different among the groups. Conclusion: The study concludes that nalbuphine and dexmedetomidine can effectively reduce post-operative pain and opiate use in ESS patients as preventative analgesia. Dexmedetomidine may be a better option due to its superior analgesic effect and lower incidence of nausea and vomiting. These findings may lead to improved pain management and patient satisfaction following ESS procedures.