Mohanchandra Mandal

Unilateral paravertebral block: an alternative to conventional spinal anaesthesia for inguinal hernia repair.

Background: Inguinal herniorrhaphy can be successfully performed using general, regional or local anaesthesia. Paravertebral block (PVB) has been used for unilateral procedures such as thoracotomy, breast surgery, chest wall trauma, hernia repair or renal surgery.

Paravertebral block can be an alternative to unilateral spinal anaesthesia for inguinal hernia repair

Background: Inguinal hernia repair can be performed under satisfactory anaesthetic conditions using general, regional and peripheral nerve block anaesthesia. Unilateral spinal anaesthesia provides optimal anaesthesia, with stable haemodynamics and minimal adverse events. The paravertebral block, being segmental in nature, can be expected to produce some advantages regarding haemodynamic stability and early ambulation and may be a viable alternative. Methods: Fifty-four consenting male patients posted for inguinal hernia repair were randomized into two groups, to receive either the two-segment paravertebral block (group-P, n=26) at T10 and L1 or unilateral spinal anaesthesia (group-S, n=28), respectively. The time to ambulation (primary outcome), time to the first analgesic, total rescue analgesic consumption in the first 24-hour period and adverse events were noted. Results: Block performance time and time to reach surgical anaesthesia were significantly higher in the patients of group-P (P<0.001). Time to ambulation was significantly shorter in group-P compared to group-S (P<0.001), while postoperative sensory block was prolonged in patients of group-S; P<0.001. A significantly higher number of patients could bypass the recovery room in group-P compared to group-S, (45% versus 0%, respectively, P<0.001). No statistically significant difference in adverse outcomes was recorded. Conclusion: Both the paravertebral block and unilateral spinal anaesthesia are effective anaesthetic techniques for uncomplicated inguinal hernia repair. However, the paravertebral block can be an attractive alternative as it provides early ambulation and prolonged postoperative analgesia with minimal adverse events.

A comparative study of infusions of phenylephrine, ephedrine and phenylephrine plus ephedrine on maternal haemodynamics in elective caesarean section

Introduction: This randomized double blind study was started with an objective of management of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension in elective caesarean section by combining two commonly used vasopressors – ephedrine and phenylephrine in half of their usual doses with an expectation of reducing their foetomaternal side effects. Methods: One hundred and thirty two patients were randomized into three groups to receive either 100 μg/ml phenylephrine (group-P, n=31) or 3 μg/ml ephedrine (group-E, n=33) or 50 mg phenylephrine plus 1.5 mg ephedrine/ml (group-PE, n=29). Immediately after spinal injection the study solution was started prophylactically in every patient at the rate of 40 ml/h. A predefined algorithm was used to adjust the infusion rate according to the systolic blood pressure (SBP). Results: Mean fall of SBP was significantly more in group-E than group-P (P=0.009) and group-PE (P=0.013). This was not significantly different when compared between group-P and group-PE (P=0.9). Episodes of hypotension and tachycardia were more in group-E than the other two groups. Statistically significant tachycardia was seen in Group-E than that in other two groups. Incidence of bradycardia and hypertension did not differ significantly among the groups. Maternal nausea and Apgar score were also comparable in three groups. Conclusion: Current study claims that prophylactic phenylephrine 100 mg/ml is a better choice than ephedrine (3 mg/ml) or 50 mcg phenylephrine plus 1.5 mg ephedrine/ml in prevention of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension in elective caesarean section. Combination of two drugs in half the usual dose has no added advantage over phenylephrine, but this is better than ephedrine alone.

Ultrasound versus fluoroscopy-guided caudal epidural steroid injection for the treatment of chronic low back pain with radiculopathy: A randomised, controlled clinical trial

Background and Aims: Caudal epidural steroid administration is an effective treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP). Fluoroscopy guidance is the gold standard for pain procedures. Ultrasound guidance is recently being used in pain clinic procedures. We compared the fluoroscopy guidance and ultrasound guidance for caudal epidural steroid injection with respect to the time needed for correct placement of the needle and clinical effectiveness in patients with chronic LBP. Methods: Fifty patients with chronic LBP with radiculopathy, not responding to conventional medical management, were randomly allocated to receive injection depot methyl prednisolone (40 mg) through caudal route either using ultrasound guidance (Group U, n = 25) or fluoroscopy guidance (Group F, n = 25). Pre-procedural visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were noted. During the procedure, the time needed for correct placement of needle was observed. Adverse events, if any, were also noted. All patients were followed up for next 2 months to evaluate Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and ODI at the 2nd week and again at the end of 1st and 2nd month. Results: The needle-placement time was less using ultrasound guidance as compared to fluoroscopy guidance (119 ± 7.66 vs. 222.28 ± 29.65 s, respectively,P< 0.001). Significant reduction in VAS score and ODI (clinical improvement) was noted in the follow-up time points and comparable between the groups at all time points. Conclusion: Ultrasound guidance can be a safe alternative tool for achieving faster needle placement in caudal epidural space. Clinical effectiveness (reduction of VAS and ODI scores) remains comparable between both the techniques.

Scientific misconducts and authorship conflicts: Indian perspective.

This article is a narrative review about how appropriate authorship can be achieved, a brief mention about various scientific misconducts, the reason and consequences of such misconducts and finally, the policies to be adopted by the aspiring authors to avert these problems. The literature search was performed in the Google and PubMed using ′scientific misconduct′, ′honorary/ghost authorship′, ′publish-or-perish′, ′plagiarism′ and other related key words and phrases. More than 300 free full-text articles published from 1990 to 2015 were retrieved and studied. Many consensus views have been presented regarding what constitutes authorship, the authorship order and different scientific misconducts. The conflicts about authorship issues related to publication of dissertation, the area of the grey zone have been discussed. Suggestions from different authorities about improving the existing inappropriate authorship issues have been included.

Sample size calculation: Basic principles.

Addressing a sample size is a practical issue that has to be solved during planning and designing stage of the study. The aim of any clinical research is to detect the actual difference between two groups (power) and to provide an estimate of the difference with a reasonable accuracy (precision). Hence, researchers should do a priori estimate of sample size well ahead, before conducting the study. Post hoc sample size computation is not encouraged conventionally. Adequate sample size minimizes the random error or in other words, lessens something happening by chance. Too small a sample may fail to answer the research question and can be of questionable validity or provide an imprecise answer while too large a sample may answer the question but is resource-intensive and also may be unethical. More transparency in the calculation of sample size is required so that it can be justified and replicated while reporting.

Ideal resuscitation fluid in hypovolemia: The quest is on and miles to go!

Hypovolemia is defined as a decrease in the blood volume resulting from loss of blood, plasma and/or plasma water, thereby causing a loss of intravascular content and resulting in a potential limitation of tissue perfusion.[1] It is often seen in case of severe dehydration or blood loss owing to trauma or surgery. If left untreated, this ‘hypovolemic shock’ can result in hypoxic tissue damage, organ failure, and ultimately, death. Activation of sympathetic nervous system (homeostatic response) results in peripheral vasoconstriction and tachycardia thereby trying to preserve blood flow to vital organs and maintain blood pressure up to a certain degree of hypovolemia. Hence, in patients of trauma, only when the magnitude of blood loss approaches half the circulating volume or that occurs rapidly, there can be a relation between the cardiac output and blood pressure.

Opioids as co-induction agents - the pros and cons

The term co‐induction refers to simultaneous administration of two or more drugs to facilitate the induction of general anesthesia. Essentially, this concept originates from prudent use of different agents to achieve all components of anesthesia while minimizing adverse effects of any specific agent used singly to achieve the same, thus patching up the shortcomings of one agent with the other. The aim of co‐induction is to achieve desired responses with the use of decreased dose of a primary agent while improving the quality of anesthesia with stable hemodynamics. Optimization of the time‐course of drugs effects and a favorable ratio of desirable effects to adverse effects can be achieved with co‐induction. This also reduces the consumption of expensive inducing agents such as etomidate and propofol, thereby reducing total cost. [1] The pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, drug interaction at receptor level, the variation in pharmaceutical formulations, the adverse effect profiles, and economic constraints are to be considered.

Comparison of the respective effects of paracetamol, pregabalin, and their combination in the treatment of postdural puncture headache following major gynecological surgery

Background and objective Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) is a very distressing symptom after spinal anesthesia. It usually resolves spontaneously but may extend the length of hospital stay. Although there are different measures to reduce the incidence, most of the times, none of them are effective. Paracetamol is commonly used for the treatment of PDPH. Pregabalin is recently being used for PDPH with effective results. In this study, our aim was to compare the respective effects of paracetamol, pregabalin, and their combination in the treatment of PDPH. Patients and methods In total, 150 patients who had undergone major gynecological surgery under spinal anesthesia and subsequently developed PDPH (diagnosed by postdural components of the pain) were randomly allocated by using computer-generated random numbers placed in sealed opaque envelopes. The patients were allocated into three equal groups (n = 50, each group) to receive orally either a single dose of 150 mg pregabalin (group 1) or 1000 mg of paracetamol (group 2) or a combined dose of paracetamol 1000 mg plus pregabalin 150 mg (group 3). All the patients received the same drug that they had originally received, if required, and were then followed up for 4 days. A patients headache was scored using the visual analogue scale. Results Earlier relief from PDPH and favorable adverse event profile (overall and central nervous system-related) were found in for the pregabalin–paracetamol combination compared with either of the drugs being used alone (P < 0.05). Conclusion It was concluded that the pregabalin–paracetamol combination is a better option for the treatment of PDPH compared with both of the drugs when used alone.