Yuan-Shiou Huang

Effect on postoperative sore throat of spraying the endotracheal tube cuff with benzydamine hydrochloride, 10% lidocaine, and 2% lidocaine.

BACKGROUND:Postoperative sore throat (POST) is a common complication after endotracheal intubation. We compared the effectiveness on POST of spraying the endotracheal tube (ETT) cuff with benzydamine hydrochloride, 10% lidocaine, and 2% lidocaine. METHODS:Three hundred seventy-two patients were randomly allocated into 4 groups. The ETT cuffs in each group were sprayed with benzydamine hydrochloride, 10% lidocaine hydrochloride, 2% lidocaine hydrochloride, or normal saline before endotracheal intubation. After insertion, the cuffs were inflated to an airway leak pressure of 20 cm H2O. Anesthesia was maintained with propofol. The patients were examined for sore throat (none, mild, moderate, or severe) at 1, 6, 12, and 24 hours after extubation. RESULTS:The highest incidence of POST occurred at 6 hours after extubation in all groups. There was a significantly lower incidence of POST in the benzydamine group than 10% lidocaine, 2% lidocaine, and normal saline groups (P < 0.05) at each observation time point. At 6 hours after extubation, the incidence of POST was significantly lower in the benzydamine group (17.0%) compared with 10% lidocaine (53.7%), 2% lidocaine (37.0%), and normal saline (40.8%) groups (P < 0.05). The benzydamine group had significantly decreased severity of POST compared with the 10% lidocaine, 2% lidocaine, and normal saline groups (P < 0.05) at each observation time point. Compared with the 2% lidocaine and normal saline groups, the 10% lidocaine group had significantly increased severity of POST at 1, 6, and 12 hours after extubation. There were no significant differences among groups in local or systemic side effects. CONCLUSIONS:Spraying benzydamine hydrochloride on the ETT cuff is a simple and effective method to reduce the incidence and severity of POST.

The Effectiveness of Benzydamine Hydrochloride Spraying on the Endotracheal Tube Cuff or Oral Mucosa for Postoperative Sore Throat

BACKGROUND:The etiology of postoperative sore throat (POST) is considered to be the result of laryngoscopy, intubation damage, or inflated cuff compression of the tracheal mucosa. In this study, we compared the effectiveness in alleviating POST using different approaches to benzydamine hydrochloride (BH) administration by spraying the endotracheal tube (ET) cuff or the oropharyngeal cavity, or both. METHODS:Three hundred eighty patients were included in this prospective and double-blind study, which was randomized into 4 groups: group A, oropharyngeal cavity spray of BH, and distilled water on the ET cuff; group B, both the oropharyngeal cavity and the ET cuff received BH spray; group C, the ET cuff received BH spray, and the oropharyngeal cavity received distilled water; and group D, distilled water sprayed on both the ET tube and into the oropharyngeal cavity. The patients were examined for sore throat (none, mild, moderate, severe) at 0, 2, 4, and 24 hours postextubation. RESULTS:The incidence of POST was 23.2%, 13.8%, 14.7%, and 40.4% in groups A, B, C, and D, respectively. POST occurred significantly less frequently in groups B and C compared with group D (odds ratio: 0.36; 95% confidence interval: 0.21–0.60; P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between groups A and D (odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.38–1.01). Moreover, there was no significant interaction between spraying BH over the oropharyngeal cavity and the ET cuff on the incidence of POST (P = 0.088). The severity of POST was significantly more intense in group D compared with groups B and C (P < 0.001). Group B had a significantly higher incidence of local numbness, burning, and/or stinging sensation compared with patients in group D (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:This study indicates that spraying BH on the ET cuff decreases the incidence and severity of POST without increased BH-related adverse effects.

An analysis of anesthesia-controlled operating room time after propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia compared with desflurane anesthesia in ophthalmic surgery: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND:Anesthetic techniques can contribute to reduction of anesthesia-controlled time to improve operating room (OR) efficiency. However, little is known about the difference in anesthesia-controlled time between propofol-based total IV anesthesia (TIVA) and desflurane anesthesia (DES) techniques for ophthalmic surgery under general anesthesia. METHODS:We performed a retrospective analysis using hospital databases to compare the anesthesia-controlled times of ophthalmic surgery patients receiving either TIVA via target-controlled infusion with propofol/fentanyl or desflurane/fentanyl-based anesthesia between January 2010 and December 2011. The various time intervals (surgical time, incision to surgical completion and application of dressings; anesthesia time, start of anesthesia to extubation; extubation time, surgery complete and dressings applied to extubation; time in OR, arrival in the OR to departure from the OR; postanesthetic care unit (PACU) stay time, arrival in the PACU to discharge from the PACU to the general ward; and total surgical suite time, arrival in the OR to discharge from the PACU to the general ward) that comprise a patient’s hospital stay and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were compared between the 2 anesthetic techniques. RESULTS:We included data from 1405 patients, with 595 patients receiving TIVA and 810 receiving DES. The extubation time was faster (TIVA-DES = −1.85 minutes, 99.2% confidence interval [CI], −2.47 to −1.23 minutes) and the PACU stay time was shorter (TIVA-DES = −3.62 minutes, 99.2% CI, −6.97 to −0.10 minutes) in the TIVA group than in the DES group. However, there was no significant difference in total surgical suite time between groups (TIVA-DES = −5.03 minutes, 99.2% CI, −11.75 to 1.69 minutes). We performed the random-effects analyses while stratifying for procedure and showed that the extubation time in the TIVA group was faster by 14% (99.2% CI, 9% to 19%, P < 0.0001) relative to the DES group, and the PACU stay time was faster by 5% (99.2% CI, 1% to 10%, P = 0.002). Significantly fewer patients suffered postoperative nausea and vomiting and required rescue therapy in the TIVA group than in the DES group (11.3% vs 32.2%, risk difference 21.0%, 95% CI, 16.9% to 25.1%, P < 0.001 and 23.9% vs 54.0%, risk difference 30.1%, 95% CI, 18.3% to 42.0%, P = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:In our hospital, the use of TIVA reduced the mean time to extubation by at least 9% and PACU stay time by more than 1% when compared with the use of DES anesthesia for ophthalmic surgery.

Faster extubation time with more stable hemodynamics during extubation and shorter total surgical suite time after propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia compared with desflurane anesthesia in lengthy lumbar spine surgery

OBJECT Anesthesia techniques can contribute to the reduction of anesthesia-controlled time and may therefore improve operating room efficiency. However, little is known about the difference in anesthesia-controlled time between propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and desflurane (DES) anesthesia techniques for prolonged lumbar spine surgery under general anesthesia. METHODS A retrospective analysis was conducted using hospital databases to compare the anesthesia-controlled time of lengthy (surgical time > 180 minutes) lumbar spine surgery in patients receiving either TIVA via target-controlled infusion (TCI) with propofol/fentanyl or DES/fentanyl-based anesthesia, between January 2009 and December 2011. A variety of time intervals (surgical time, anesthesia time, extubation time, time in the operating room, postanesthesia care unit [PACU] length of stay, and total surgical suite time) comprising perioperative hemodynamic variables were compared between the 2 anesthesia techniques. RESULTS Data from 581 patients were included in the analysis; 307 patients received TIVA and 274 received DES anesthesia. The extubation time was faster (12.4 ± 5.3 vs 7.0 ± 4.5 minutes, p < 0.001), and the time in operating room and total surgical suite time was shorter in the TIVA group than in the DES group (326.5 ± 57.2 vs 338.4 ± 69.4 minutes, p = 0.025; and 402.6 ± 60.2 vs 414.4 ± 71.7 minutes, p = 0.033, respectively). However, there was no statistically significant difference in PACU length of stay between the groups. Heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure were more stable during extubation in the TIVA group than in the DES group. CONCLUSIONS Utilization of TIVA reduced the mean time to extubation and total surgical suite time by 5.4 minutes and 11.8 minutes, respectively, and produced more stable hemodynamics during extubation compared with the use of DES anesthesia in lengthy lumbar spine surgery.

Confounding Factors to Predict the Awakening Effect-Site Concentration of Propofol in Target-Controlled Infusion Based on Propofol and Fentanyl Anesthesia

We conducted a large retrospective study to investigate the confounding factors that predict Ce ROC under propofol-based TIVA with TCI. We recorded sex, age, height, weight, Ce LOC, Ce ROC, total propofol and fentanyl consumption dose, and anesthetic time. Simple linear regression models were used to identify potential predictors of Ce ROC, and multiple linear regression models were used to identify the confounding predictors of Ce ROC. We found that Ce ROC correlated with age, sex, Ce LOC, and both total fentanyl and propofol consumption dose. The prediction formula was: Ce ROC = 0.87 - 0.06 × age + 0.18 × Ce LOC + 0.04 (if fentanyl consumption > 150 μg; if not, ignore this value) + 0.07 × (1 or 2, according to the total propofol consumption dose, 1 for a propofol amount 1000-2000 mg and 2 for a propofol amount > 2000 mg). We simplified the formula further as Ce ROC = 0.87 - 0.06 × age + 0.18 × Ce LOC. In conclusion, Ce ROC can be predicted under TCI with propofol- and fentanyl-based TIVA. The confounding factors that predicted propofol Ce ROC are age, sex, Ce LOC, and total consumption dose of propofol and fentanyl.

Intrapleural Misplacement of a Thoracic Epidural Catheter in an Anesthetized Patient

Thoracic epidural analgesia provides adequate postoperative pain relief and favorable outcomes in major operations. However, a small number of devastating complications have been reported. Here we present a case of asymptomatic but potentially life-threatening intrapleural insertion of a thoracic epidural catheter intended for postoperative analgesia. A 39-year-old male diagnosed with esophageal carcinoma was scheduled for esophageal reconstruction. After induction of general anesthesia, a thoracic epidural catheter was inserted with a paramedian approach at the T8-9 interspace, using loss of resistance to ensure correct placement. The administration of a test dose of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine was unremarkable. After right thoracotomy, the epidural catheter was found in the right pleural cavity and was instantly removed. The patient underwent the operation smoothly and was discharged 10 days later without any sequelae. We recommend practitioners estimate the depth from the skin to the epidural space by computed tomography scan before operation and perform the placement of thoracic epidural catheter while the patient is awake to avoid accidental intrapleural misplacement.

Propofol-based Total Intravenous Anesthesia Is Associated with Better Survival Than Desflurane Anesthesia in Colon Cancer Surgery

What We Already Know about This Topic Propofol may better preserve host defenses against cancer Whether cancer recurrence is less likely with propofol than volatile anesthesia remains unknown What This Article Tells Us That Is New The authors conducted a propensity-matched retrospective analysis of 1,158 patients who had colon cancer surgery Patients anesthetized with propofol had better overall survival Background: Previous research has shown different effects of anesthetics on cancer cell growth. Here, the authors investigated the association between type of anesthetic and patient survival after elective colon cancer surgery. Methods: A retrospective cohort study included patients who received elective colon cancer surgery between January 2005 and December 2014. Patients were grouped according to anesthesia received: propofol or desflurane. After exclusion of those who received combined propofol anesthesia with inhalation anesthesia or epidural anesthesia, survival curves were constructed from the date of surgery to death. After propensity matching, univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death. Subgroup analyses were performed for tumor–node–metastasis staging and postoperative metastasis. Results: A total of 706 patients (307 deaths, 43.5%) with desflurane anesthesia and 657 (88 deaths, 13.4%) with propofol anesthesia were eligible for analysis. After propensity matching, 579 patients remained in each group (189 deaths, 32.6%, in the desflurane group vs. 87, 15.0%, in the propofol group). In the matched analyses, the propofol-treated group had a better survival, irrespective of lower tumor–node–metastasis stage (hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.42; P < 0.001) or higher tumor–node–metastasis stage (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.55; P < 0.001) and presence of metastases (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.86; P = 0.002) or absence of metastases (hazard ratio, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.62; P = 0.016). Simple propensity score adjustment produced similar findings. Conclusions: Propofol anesthesia for colon cancer surgery is associated with better survival irrespective of tumor–node–metastasis stage.