Nurlia Yahya

Comparing the effectiveness of ropivacaine 0.5% versus ropivacaine 0.2% for transabdominis plane block in providing postoperative analgesia after appendectomy

OBJECTIVE The basis for the transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block involves infiltration of a local anesthetic into the neurofascial plane between the internal oblique and the transversus abdominis muscles, causing a regional block that spreads between the L1 and T10 dermatomes. Thus, the TAP block is said to be suitable for lower abdominal surgery. This study was designed to compare the analgesic efficacy of two different concentrations of ropivacaine for TAP block in patients undergoing appendectomy. METHODS Fifty-six patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, aged 18 years and above, undergoing appendectomy were recruited in this prospective, randomized, double-blind study. They were divided into two groups: Group A patients who received 0.5 mL/kg of ropivacaine 0.5% and Group B patients who received 0.5 mL/kg of ropivacaine 0.2% via TAP block under ultrasound guidance. Postoperative pain was assessed using the visual analog scale upon arrival at the recovery room in the operating theatre, just prior to being discharged to the ward, and at 6 hours, 12 hours, 18 hours, and 24 hours postoperatively to compare the effectiveness of analgesia. RESULTS Intraoperatively, patients in Group B required a significantly greater amount of additional intravenous fentanyl than those in Group A. There were no significant statistical differences in pain scores at rest and on movement at all assessment times as well as in the dose of 24-hour intravenous morphine consumption given via patient-controlled analgesia postoperatively between the two groups. CONCLUSION The effectiveness of two different concentrations of ropivacaine (0.5% versus 0.2%) given via TAP block was comparable in providing postoperative analgesia for patients undergoing appendectomy.

Combined spinal-epidural analgesia in labour: its effects on delivery outcome

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Combined spinal-epidural (CSE) has become an increasingly popular alternative to traditional labour epidural due to its rapid onset and reliable analgesia provided. This was a prospective, convenient sampling study to determine the effects of CSE analgesia on labour outcome. METHODS One hundred and ten healthy primigravida parturients with a singleton pregnancy of ≥37 weeks gestation and in the active phase of labour were studied. They were enrolled to the CSE (n=55) or Non-CSE (n=55) group based on whether they consented to CSE analgesia. Non-CSE parturients were offered other methods of labour analgesia. The duration of the first and second stage of labour, rate of instrumental vaginal delivery and emergency cesarean section, and Apgar scores were compared. RESULTS The mean duration of the first and second stage of labour was not significantly different between both groups. Instrumental delivery rates between the groups were not significantly different (CSE group, 11% versus Non-CSE group, 16%). The slightly higher incidence of cesarean section in the CSE group (16% versus 15% in the Non-CSE group) was not statistically significant. Neonatal outcome in terms of Apgar score of less than 7 at 1 and 5min was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION There were no significant differences in the duration of labour, rate of instrumental vaginal delivery and emergency cesarean section, and neonatal outcome in parturients who received compared to those who did not receive CSE for labour analgesia.

Comparação das características de inserção de sonda nasogástrica, usando visibilização pelo laringoscópio GlideScope® vs. guiada pelo laringoscópio MacIntosh em pacientes anestesiados e intubados

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE This was a prospective, randomized clinical study to compare the success rate of nasogastric tube insertion by using GlideScope™ visualization versus direct MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anesthetized and intubated patients. METHODS Ninety-six ASA I or II patients, aged 18-70 years were recruited and randomized into two groups using either technique. The time taken from insertion of the nasogastric tube from the nostril until the calculated length of tube had been inserted was recorded. The success rate of nasogastric tube insertion was evaluated in terms of successful insertion in the first attempt. Complications associated with the insertion techniques were recorded. RESULTS The results showed success rates of 74.5% in the GlideScope™ Group as compared to 58.3% in the MacIntosh Group (p=0.10). For the failed attempts, the nasogastric tube was successfully inserted in all cases using rescue techniques. The duration taken in the first attempt for both techniques was not statistically significant; Group A was 17.2±9.3s as compared to Group B, with a duration of 18.9±13.0s (p=0.57). A total of 33 patients developed complications during insertion of the nasogastric tube, 39.4% in Group A and 60.6% in Group B (p=0.15). The most common complications, which occurred, were coiling, followed by bleeding and kinking. CONCLUSION This study showed that using the GlideScope™ to facilitate nasogastric tube insertion was comparable to the use of the MacIntosh laryngoscope in terms of successful rate of insertion and complications.

Comparing insertion characteristics on nasogastric tube placement by using GlideScope™ visualization vs. MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anaesthetized and intubated patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE This was a prospective, randomized clinical study to compare the success rate of nasogastric tube insertion by using GlideScope™ visualization versus direct MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anesthetized and intubated patients. METHODS Ninety-six ASA I or II patients, aged 18-70 years were recruited and randomized into two groups using either technique. The time taken from insertion of the nasogastric tube from the nostril until the calculated length of tube had been inserted was recorded. The success rate of nasogastric tube insertion was evaluated in terms of successful insertion in the first attempt. Complications associated with the insertion techniques were recorded. RESULTS The results showed success rates of 74.5% in the GlideScope™ Group as compared to 58.3% in the MacIntosh Group (p=0.10). For the failed attempts, the nasogastric tube was successfully inserted in all cases using rescue techniques. The duration taken in the first attempt for both techniques was not statistically significant; Group A was 17.2±9.3s as compared to Group B, with a duration of 18.9±13.0s (p=0.57). A total of 33 patients developed complications during insertion of the nasogastric tube, 39.4% in Group A and 60.6% in Group B (p=0.15). The most common complications, which occurred, were coiling, followed by bleeding and kinking. CONCLUSION This study showed that using the GlideScope™ to facilitate nasogastric tube insertion was comparable to the use of the MacIntosh laryngoscope in terms of successful rate of insertion and complications.

Analgesia combinada raquiperidural em trabalho de parto: seus efeitos sobre o desfecho do parto

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Combined spinal-epidural (CSE) has become an increasingly popular alternative to traditional labour epidural due to its rapid onset and reliable analgesia provided. This was a prospective, convenient sampling study to determine the effects of CSE analgesia on labour outcome. METHODS One hundred and ten healthy primigravida parturients with a singleton pregnancy of ≥37 weeks gestation and in the active phase of labour were studied. They were enrolled to the CSE (n=55) or Non-CSE (n=55) group based on whether they consented to CSE analgesia. Non-CSE parturients were offered other methods of labour analgesia. The duration of the first and second stage of labour, rate of instrumental vaginal delivery and emergency cesarean section, and Apgar scores were compared. RESULTS The mean duration of the first and second stage of labour was not significantly different between both groups. Instrumental delivery rates between the groups were not significantly different (CSE group, 11% versus Non-CSE group, 16%). The slightly higher incidence of cesarean section in the CSE group (16% versus 15% in the Non-CSE group) was not statistically significant. Neonatal outcome in terms of Apgar score of less than 7 at 1 and 5min was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION There were no significant differences in the duration of labour, rate of instrumental vaginal delivery and emergency cesarean section, and neonatal outcome in parturients who received compared to those who did not receive CSE for labour analgesia.

A Comparison of Soda Lime (Intersurgical) with Amsorb® plus: The Cost Implications

This was a prospective study comparing the cost implications between two carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbers, soda lime (Intersurgical) and AMSORB® PLUS. The study was conducted over two 4-week periods in two dedicated operating theatres using Datex Ohmeda Aestiva/5 anaesthetic machines. AMSORB® PLUS was used during the first four weeks and soda lime (Intersurgical) the following four weeks. General anaesthesia was administered as routinely done but fresh gas flow (FGF) during the maintenance phase was limited to a maximum flow of 2 L/min. The CO2 absorber was only changed when there was evidence of exhaustion. Total duration of anaesthesia, sevoflurane (bottles) and CO2 absorber (kg) consumption, and amount of waste product (kg) was calculated at the end of each study period. The total cost of delivering general anaesthesia was lower in the AMSORB® PLUS group, RM82.40 (USD19.89)/hour versus the soda lime group, RM91.50 (USD 22.09)/hour (p=0.17), which translates to a 10% reduction in cost per hour. Reduction in sevoflurane consumption in the AMSORB® PLUS compared to the soda lime group was also not statistically significant (p=0.22). The only significant finding was the reduction in CO2 absorber consumption in the AMSORB® PLUS group as compared to soda lime group (p=0.001). In conclusion, AMSORB® PLUS consumption was significantly reduced compared to that of soda lime. However, the use of AMSORB® PLUS did not significantly reduce sevoflurane consumption nor the total cost of delivering general anaesthesia. Given the superior safety profile, AMSORB® PLUS may be a suitable, cost-effective alternative to soda lime in the daily practice of anaesthesia.