Anesthesia for patients with morbid obesity can be challenging because of increased risk of opioid-related adverse events, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and poor pain control. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with inhalation anesthesia in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Clinical Trials Registry database from inception to July 22, 2020. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain and PONV scores. Secondary outcomes included opioid requirements, intraoperative time, complications, and time to recovery. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Among 722 studies identified in our search, 7 randomized studies involving a total of 682 patients met the inclusion criteria. Bariatric surgery with TIVA resulted in a lower incidence of nausea (relative risk [RR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31-0.94; P = 0.03; moderate certainty) and vomiting (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.74; P = 0.008; moderate certainty). There was no difference in postoperative pain at 30 minutes, 1 hour, or 24 hours, or in postoperative opioid requirements. Patients undergoing bariatric surgery with TIVA had significantly lower incidence of PONV but no difference in postoperative pain when TIVA was compared to inhalation anesthesia techniques. These benefits should be considered in order to improve the quality of care and enhance recovery for the bariatric population, who are at an increased baseline risk of perioperative complications. Future adequately powered randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the efficacy of the anesthesia regimens in patients undergoing bariatric surgery.
Background: Most of the reports showed that videolaryngoscopy has better outcomes than direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation. The FKScope® comprises a semirigid and malleable stylet with a terminal camera and has been used to facilitate orotracheal intubation. However, its efficacy and safety for nasotracheal intubation remain unknown. This study compared FKScope® with Macintosh direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation.
Methods: Sixty-four patients scheduled for oral and maxillofacial surgery requiring nasotracheal intubation were enrolled and randomly assigned to FKScope® (n = 32) or Macintosh group (n = 32). The primary outcome was time to successful intubation during the first attempt. Secondary outcomes included modified nasal intubation difficulty scale (MNIDS) scores; percentage of glottic opening (POGO); immediate postintubation side effects such as mucosal bleeding, dental injury, and lip lacerations; and postoperative side effects including nasal pain, sore throat, hoarseness, dysphagia, and dyspnea.
Results: The rates of successful first-attempt intubation were 87.5% and 90.6% in the FKScope® and Macintosh group, respectively (P = 0.69). Mean (± standard deviation) total intubation time was 68.7 ± 34.8 s in the FKScope® group compared with 61.5 ± 21.9 s in the Macintosh group (P = 0.35), despite a higher POGO for the FKScope® group (77 ± 27 vs. 41 ± 31, P ＜ 0.01). The MNIDS scores of the FKScope® group were significantly lower (0.8 ± 1.0 vs. 2.8 ± 1.4, P ＜ 0.01). The groups did not differ significantly regarding most postoperative side effects, although the FKScope® group had fewer lip lacerations (P = 0.04).
Conclusions: The use of FKScope® improves the view of the glottic opening and is safe for nasotracheal intubation with normal airways. However, secretions and blood can obstruct the camera, and therefore, to select the patient carefully is necessary.
Background: Preemptive analgesia is important for reducing postoperative analgesia requirement. Therefore, this study compared the efficacy of intravenous (IV) ketamine alone with the efficacy of a combination of low-dose IV ketamine and IV parecoxib as part of a multimodal preemptive analgesia regimen in patients undergoing elective laparotomy.
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).
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：