Quality of recovery after anesthesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a prospective, controlled, double-blind randomized study comparing total intravenous anesthesia versus desflurane anesthesia

2020 ◽  
pp. 2164-2169
Author(s):  
Naman Almahri ◽  
Hussain Qattan ◽  
Ibrahim Almuhaimeed ◽  
Yaser AlKasih ◽  
Hany Mowafi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Total Intravenous Anesthesia ◽  
Intravenous Anesthesia ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Quality Of Recovery

scholarly journals Patient quality of recovery on the day of surgery after propofol total intravenous anesthesia for vitrectomy

Medicine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 97 (40) ◽  
pp. e12699 ◽  
Author(s):  
Se Hee Na ◽  
Kyu Hee Jeong ◽  
Dahae Eum ◽  
Jin Ha Park ◽  
Min-Soo Kim
Keyword(s):  
Total Intravenous Anesthesia ◽  
Intravenous Anesthesia ◽  
Quality Of Recovery

Ultrasound-guided Multilevel Paravertebral Blocks and Total Intravenous Anesthesia Improve the Quality of Recovery after Ambulatory Breast Tumor Resection

2014 ◽  
Vol 120 (3) ◽  
pp. 703-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faraj W. Abdallah ◽  
Pamela J. Morgan ◽  
Tulin Cil ◽  
Andrew McNaught ◽  
Jaime M. Escallon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Breast Tumor ◽  
Tumor Resection ◽  
Total Intravenous Anesthesia ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Discharge Time ◽  
Intravenous Anesthesia ◽  
Quality Of Recovery ◽  
Pain Scores

Abstract Background: Regional anesthesia improves postoperative analgesia and enhances quality of recovery (QoR) after ambulatory surgery. This randomized, double-blinded, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial examines the effects of multilevel ultrasound-guided paravertebral blocks (PVBs) and total intravenous anesthesia on QoR after ambulatory breast tumor resection. Methods: Sixty-six women were randomized to standardized general anesthesia (control group) or PVBs and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (PVB group). The PVB group received T1–T5 PVBs with 5 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine per level, whereas the control group received sham subcutaneous injections. Postoperative QoR was designated as the primary outcome. The 29-item ambulatory QoR tool was administered in the preadmission clinic, before discharge, and on postoperative days 2, 4, and 7. Secondary outcomes included block success, pain scores, intra- and postoperative morphine consumption, time to rescue analgesia, incidence of nausea and vomiting, and hospital discharge time. Results: Data from sixty-four patients were analyzed. The PVB group had higher QoR scores than control group upon discharge (146 vs. 131; P < 0.0001) and on postoperative day 2 (145 vs. 135; P = 0.013); improvements beyond postoperative day 2 lacked statistical significance. None of the PVB group patients required conversion to inhalation gas–based general anesthesia or experienced block-related complications. PVB group patients had improved pain scores on postanesthesia care unit admission and discharge, hospital discharge, and postoperative day 2; their intraoperative morphine consumption, incidence of nausea and vomiting, and discharge time were also reduced. Conclusion: Combining multilevel PVBs with total intravenous anesthesia provides reliable anesthesia, improves postoperative analgesia, enhances QoR, and expedites discharge compared with inhalational gas- and opioid-based general anesthesia for ambulatory breast tumor resection.

scholarly journals A Comparison of the Sevoflurane and Total Intravenous Anesthesia on the Quality of Recovery in 2 to 10-Year-Old Children

2020 ◽  
Vol In Press (In Press) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dariush Sheikhzade ◽  
Mehdi Razaghipour ◽  
Mahin Seyedhejazi ◽  
Behzad Aliakbari Sharabiani ◽  
Marzieh Marahem
Keyword(s):  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Outpatient Surgery ◽  
Pediatric Anesthesia ◽  
Demographic Characteristics ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Total Intravenous Anesthesia ◽  
Intravenous Anesthesia ◽  
Sevoflurane Group ◽  
Quality Of Recovery

Background: Inhalant anesthesia is one of the mainstays of pediatric anesthesia, and it is considered by the majority of pediatric anesthetists worldwide as the gold standard. On the other hand, total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) is a very popular choice for routine pediatric anesthesia practice. Therefore, utilization of TIVA compared to the volatile anesthesia is still a topic of debate in successful anesthesia management. Objectives: To compare TIVA vs sevoflurane-based anesthesia on the quality of recovery in children aged 2 to 10 years who had outpatient surgery. Methods: Eighty children, aged 2 to 10 years old undergoing outpatient surgery, were randomly divided into two groups (40 patients each). The TIVA group with propofol (T) received general anesthesia induced with midazolam 0.03 - 0.05 mg/kg, fentanyl 1 mcg/kg, propofol 3 - 5 mg/kg, 0.1 mg/kg lidocaine and maintenance with propofol 100 to 250 μg/kg.min and remifantanil 0.1 mcg/kg. The sevoflurane (S) group received general anesthesia induced with midazolam 0.03 - 0.05 mg/kg, fentanyl 1 mcg/kg, O2/sevoflurane 8 vol%, maintenance with 2 - 3 vol%. Demographic characteristics, awakening quality in recovery, hemodynamic status, and other complications such as patient agitation, pain, nausea, and vomiting were evaluated in both groups. Results: Patients did not differ significantly in terms of demographic characteristics. The incidence of postoperative agitation was 62% higher in the sevoflurane group than the TIVA group (5%, P < 0.001). The highest percentage of pain was obtained as 52.5% in the sevoflurane group. Postoperative nausea and vomiting did not differ significantly among groups, and there was a significant decrease in the heart rate of the subjects in the T group as one of the hemodynamic variables (P = 0.01). Conclusions: Inhalation anesthesia with sevoflurane led to more rapid recovery from anesthesia, and TIVA with propofol injection reduced post-operative pain and agitation compared to patients receiving sevoflurane. Therefore, TIVA with propofol infusion is probably an effective technique to maintain general anesthesia in pediatric outpatient surgery and to increase parental satisfaction, and to reduce the workload of recovery room staff.

Efficacy of Celecoxib in Treating Symptoms of Viral Pharyngitis: A Double-Blind, Randomized Study of Celecoxib versus Diclofenac

2002 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
LLM Weckx ◽  
JE Ruiz ◽  
J Duperly ◽  
GA Martínez Mendizabal ◽  
MBG Rausis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Specific Inhibitor ◽  
Symptomatic Treatment ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Daily Group ◽  
Throat Pain

This study compared the efficacy and safety of the cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitor celecoxib with the conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac in the symptomatic treatment of viral pharyngitis. Adult patients from 27 study centers in Latin America were treated with oral doses of celecoxib 200 mg once daily or 200 mg twice daily, or diclofenac 75 mg twice daily for 5 days in a double-blind, randomized study. The primary efficacy assessment was ‘Throat Pain on Swallowing’ on day 3. In addition, secondary quality-of-life assessments were performed on days 3 and 5. All adverse events and treatment-emergent signs and symptoms were recorded. Data from 313 patients were evaluable for efficacy (105 celecoxib 200 mg once daily, 107 celecoxib 200 mg twice daily, 101 diclofenac 75 mg twice daily). The upper 95% confidence limits for the visual analog scale of ‘Throat Pain on Swallowing’ on day 3 for celecoxib 200 mg once daily relative to diclofenac 75 mg twice daily, and celecoxib 200 mg twice daily relative to diclofenac 75 mg twice daily were 9.26 and 7.83, respectively. All secondary efficacy and quality-of-life measures were clinically similar for the three treatment groups, and no statistically significant differences were detected. The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events were similar for all groups, but numerically higher among patients taking diclofenac than celecoxib. More patients in the diclofenac group reported gastrointestinal complaints (7.3%) compared with those in the celecoxib groups (4.3% in the celecoxib 200 mg once-daily group and 3.4% in the celecoxib 200 mg twice-daily group). In conclusion, 5 days of treatment with celecoxib 200 mg once daily is as effective as diclofenac 75 mg twice daily in the symptomatic treatment of viral pharyngitis. Celecoxib 200 mg once daily is also as effective as celecoxib 200 mg twice daily in this condition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document