Efficacy of esmolol versus magnesium sulphate on quality of recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Randomized controlled study

IF 0.6 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2023-07-31 DOI:10.1080/11101849.2023.2240659
H. ElHoshy, Ahmed Galal El-Din Yacout
{"title":"Efficacy of esmolol versus magnesium sulphate on quality of recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Randomized controlled study","authors":"H. ElHoshy, Ahmed Galal El-Din Yacout","doi":"10.1080/11101849.2023.2240659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background Ambulatory procedures have a universal objective of rapid, efficient and secure recovery and release. Preliminary advances utilizing intraoperative esmolol infusion have registered a postoperative opioid saving outcomes. In the current study, we compared intraoperative esmolol versus magnesium sulphate infusions on postoperative recovery profile and stay in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU). Patients and methods Sixty patients, of both sexes, of ASA I or II planned for ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia were engaged into two groups. Esmolol group was given loading dose (1 mg/kg) over a period of 10 minutes followed by (30 μg/kg/min) all through the surgery, whereas magnesium sulphate (MgSo4) group was given loading dose (40 mg/kg) over 10 minutes then maintenance dose (15 mg/kg/h) till end of surgery. General anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia were standardized for all patients. Variables denoting immediate recovery from anaesthesia, pain score and time for first call to analgesia were recorded. White-Song score ≥ 12 were employed as a tool to review the rapidity of recovery. Results Compared to MgSo4 group, the esmolol group exhibited statistically significant shorter times for sponteaous eye opening, tongue extension, extubation and patients’ capability to recall their names. Incidence of vomiting as well as the total amount of ondansetron consumed in the PACU were evidently less among the esmolol group, whereas pain scores and the time of recall for first rescue analgesia did not vary significantly among the two studied groups. Members of the esmolol group displayed significant higher White -Song score at all times of measurements except at 120 minutes compared to those of MgSo 4 group. Conclusions Perioperative esmolol infusion is accompanied by superior and fast-tracked recovery profile compared to MgSo4 infusion.","PeriodicalId":11437,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11101849.2023.2240659","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Ambulatory procedures have a universal objective of rapid, efficient and secure recovery and release. Preliminary advances utilizing intraoperative esmolol infusion have registered a postoperative opioid saving outcomes. In the current study, we compared intraoperative esmolol versus magnesium sulphate infusions on postoperative recovery profile and stay in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU). Patients and methods Sixty patients, of both sexes, of ASA I or II planned for ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia were engaged into two groups. Esmolol group was given loading dose (1 mg/kg) over a period of 10 minutes followed by (30 μg/kg/min) all through the surgery, whereas magnesium sulphate (MgSo4) group was given loading dose (40 mg/kg) over 10 minutes then maintenance dose (15 mg/kg/h) till end of surgery. General anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia were standardized for all patients. Variables denoting immediate recovery from anaesthesia, pain score and time for first call to analgesia were recorded. White-Song score ≥ 12 were employed as a tool to review the rapidity of recovery. Results Compared to MgSo4 group, the esmolol group exhibited statistically significant shorter times for sponteaous eye opening, tongue extension, extubation and patients’ capability to recall their names. Incidence of vomiting as well as the total amount of ondansetron consumed in the PACU were evidently less among the esmolol group, whereas pain scores and the time of recall for first rescue analgesia did not vary significantly among the two studied groups. Members of the esmolol group displayed significant higher White -Song score at all times of measurements except at 120 minutes compared to those of MgSo 4 group. Conclusions Perioperative esmolol infusion is accompanied by superior and fast-tracked recovery profile compared to MgSo4 infusion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
艾司洛尔与硫酸镁对腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者恢复质量的影响:随机对照研究
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
78
期刊最新文献
Intrathecal levo-bupivacaine versus hyperbaric bupivacaine for inguinal hernia repairs in ex-preterm infants: A double blinded randomized prospective study Comparison of two different methods as reliable predictors of successful caudal block in children Effect of sevoflurane versus propofol on early cognitive functions in elderly patients after lumbar disc surgery Muscle wasting assessed by ultrasound versus scoring systems as early predictor of outcomes of intensive care unit stay in critically ill patients Posterior quadratus lumborum versus caudal epidural block for perioperative analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing upper abdominal surgeries: Arandomized, double-blind trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1