Search

Background: Despite its widespread use, the beneficial effect of low-dose fentanyl administered at induction of anesthesia on perioperative outcomes has not been studied in the ambulatory setting. Therefore, this study was designed to test the hypothesis that administration of small-dose fentanyl vs. saline during induction reduces coughing and movements without adversely affecting recovery after day-surgery., Methods: One hundred consenting outpatients scheduled to undergo superficial surgical procedures under general anesthesia with a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) device for airway management were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: control (n = 50) or fentanyl (n = 50). After administration of 2 ml of the unlabelled study medication containing either fentanyl (100 μg) or saline, anesthesia was induced with lidocaine 30-50 mg and propofol 2 mg/kg IV followed by the insertion of an LMA device. General anesthesia was maintained using a propofol infusion, 75 μg/kg/min, and desflurane (2-5% end-tidal) in 100% oxygen., Results: Coughing was observed in six (12%) and ten (20%) in the fentanyl and control group, respectively (P = 0.41). The incidence of movements during surgery was lower in the fentanyl group (18% vs. 31%, P < 0001). There were no significant differences in early and late recovery times or pain scores between the two groups., Conclusion: Administration of a small-dose of fentanyl at induction of anesthesia significantly reduced purposeful movements during day-surgery under propofol-desflurane anesthesia. No significant difference was found in coughing or recovery times., (© 2014 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Unlabelled: Dolasetron (12.5 mg IV) is effective in both preventing and treating postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after ambulatory surgery. However, the optimal timing of dolasetron administration and its effect on the patient's quality of life after discharge have not been established. One-hundred-five healthy, consenting women undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic procedures with a standardized general anesthetic technique were enrolled in this randomized, double-blinded study. Group 1 received dolasetron 12.5 mg IV 10-15 min before the induction of anesthesia; Group 2 received dolasetron 12.5 mg IV at the end of the laparoscopy (79 +/- 48 min later than Group 1); and Group 3 received dolasetron 12.5 mg IV at the end of anesthesia (93 +/- 52 min later than Group 1). The incidence of PONV, complete responses (defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication within the 24-h period after anesthesia), recovery profiles, and patient satisfaction were recorded. In the postanesthesia care unit and during the 24-h follow-up period, the incidence of nausea and vomiting, as well as the need for rescue antiemetics, did not differ significantly among the three groups. The percentages of patients with complete responses to the study drug within the first postoperative 24 h were also similar in all three groups (55%, 59%, and 52% for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively). The early and intermediate recovery profiles, including resumption of a normal diet and patient satisfaction with the control of PONV, were not different among the three study groups. Dolasetron 12.5 mg IV administered before the induction of anesthesia is as effective as dolasetron given at the end of laparoscopy or at the end of anesthesia in preventing PONV after outpatient laparoscopy., Implications: The timing of dolasetron administration appears to have little effect on its efficacy when administered as a prophylactic antiemetic in the ambulatory setting.

Implications: Compared to propofol, maintenance of anesthesia with desflurane provided significantly better intraoperative conditions during office-based surgery. In addition, desflurane with routine antiemetic prophylaxis was associated with a faster early recovery and similar incidence of postoperative side effects.

Background: Office-based surgery is becoming increasingly popular because of its cost-saving potential Both propofol and sevoflurane are commonly used in the ambulatory setting because of their favorable recovery profiles. This clinical investigation was designed to compare the clinical effects, recovery characteristics, and cost-effectiveness of propofol and sevoflurane when used alone or in combination for office-based anesthesia., Methods: One hundred four outpatients undergoing superficial surgical procedures at an office-based surgical center were randomly assigned to one of three general anesthetic groups. In groups I and II, propofol 2 mg/kg was administered for induction followed by propofol 75-150 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) (group I) or sevoflurane 1-2% (group II) with N2O 67% in oxygen for maintenance of anesthesia In group m, anesthesia was induced and maintained with sevoflurane in combination with N2O 67% in oxygen. Local anesthetics were injected at the incision site before skin incision and during the surgical procedure. The recovery profiles, costs of drugs, and resources used, as well as patient satisfaction, were compared among the three treatment groups., Results: Although early recovery variables (e.g., eye opening, response to commands, and sitting up) were similar in all three groups, the times to standing up and to be "home ready" were significantly prolonged when sevoflurane-N2O was used for both induction and maintenance of anesthesia. The time to tolerating fluids, recovery room stay, and discharge times were significantly decreased when propofol was used for both induction and maintenance of anesthesia. Similarly, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and the need for rescue antiemetics were also significantly reduced after propofol anesthesia. Finally, the total costs and patient satisfaction were more favorable when propofol was used for induction and maintenance of office-based anesthesia, Conclusion: Compared with sevoflurane-N2O, use of propofol-N2O for office-based anesthesia was associated with an improved recovery profile, greater patient satisfaction, and lower costs. There were significantly more patients who were dissatisfied with the sevoflurane anesthetic technique.

Study Objective: To evaluate the effect of nitrous oxide (N2O) on the recovery profile and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after office-based surgery performed under propofol anesthesia., Design: Prospective, randomized, single-blind study., Setting: Office-based surgical center., Patients: 69 ASA physical status I, II, and III healthy, consenting outpatients undergoing superficial surgical procedures lasting 15 to 45 minutes., Interventions: After a standard propofol induction (1.5 mg.kg-1 i.v.), anesthesia was initially maintained with propofol, 100 micrograms.kg-1.min-1 i.v., in combination with either air or N2O 65% in oxygen. The propofol infusion rate was subsequently varied to maintain an adequate depth of anesthesia. All patients received local anesthetic infiltration prior to the surgical incision, as well as during the operation. No prophylactic antiemetics were administered., Measurements and Main Results: Recovery times and the incidences of PONV were recorded during the first 24 hours after surgery. Early and late recovery variables were similar in the two treatment groups; however, 65% N2O produced a 19% decrease in the propofol maintenance dosage requirement. One patient (3%) experienced nausea prior to discharge in the propofol-N2O group, and two patients (6%) experienced nausea at home in the propofol alone group. None of the patients vomited or received antiemetic medication during the 24 hours postdischarge period. Ninety-seven percent of patients receiving propofol alone and all of the patients in the propofol-N2O group were "very satisfied" with their anesthetic experience., Conclusions: In outpatients undergoing office-based surgical procedures with propofol anesthesia, administration of 65% N2O decreased the anesthetic requirement without increasing PONV. Therefore, use of a propofol-N2O combination may be a cost-effective alternative to propofol alone for office-based anesthesia.

Unlabelled: The intravenous (i.v.) steroid anesthetic, eltanolone, compares favorably to propofol with respect to its induction characteristics. This double-blind investigation was designed to compare the induction and recovery profile of eltanolone (versus propofol) when it was used for both induction and maintenance of ambulatory anesthesia. Eighty-three consenting ASA physical status I-III outpatients undergoing minor gynecologic or urologic procedures lasting 10-40 min were randomly assigned to one of three anesthetic treatment groups. All patients received midazolam, 2 mg i.v., and fentanyl, 50 micrograms i.v., before induction of anesthesia. The control group (Group 1) was induced with propofol, 2.4 mg/kg i.v. (18-60 yr or ASA physical status I or II) or 1.6 mg/kg i.v. (61-80 yr and/or ASA physical status III), followed by intermittent bolus doses of 0.6 mg/kg i.v. in combination with N2O 67% for maintenance of anesthesia. In Group 2, anesthesia was induced with eltanolone, 0.75 mg/kg i.v., (18-60 yr and/or ASA physical status I or II) or 0.5 mg/kg i.v. (61-80 yr and/or ASA physical status III), and maintained with intermittent bolus injections of 0.2 mg/kg i.v. and N2O 67%. Group 3 received eltanolone, 1.0 mg/kg i.v. (18-60 yr and/or ASA physical status I or II), or 0.75 mg/kg i.v. (61-80 yr and/or ASA physical status III), followed by intermittent bolus injections of 0.2 mg/kg i.v. and N2O 67%. In addition to recording the induction and recovery times and side effects, psychomotor testing was performed before and at 30-min intervals after anesthesia. Induction times (57 +/- 23, 67 +/- 26, and 61 +/- 22s, respectively) were similar in all three groups. Although eltanolone produced no pain on injection (versus 52% in the propofol group), 10% of the eltanolone-treated patients (versus none in the propofol group) developed transient cutaneous (rash-like) reactions. The total dose of study medication used during the anesthetic period was 9.2 +/- 3.7 mg.kg-1.h-1 in the propofol group compared with 3.3 +/- 1.4 mg.kg-1.h-1 and 3.3 +/- 1.9 mg.kg-1.h-1 in Groups 2 and 3, respectively. Early recovery times were significantly shorter after propofol anesthesia. However, times to ambulation, micturition, and being judged "fit for discharge," as well as recovery of cognitive function, were similar in all three groups. Although ethanolone seems to be a safe and effective i.v. anesthetic, these data suggest that it is unlikely to replace propofol in the ambulatory setting., Implications: Eltanolone is an investigational steroid anesthetic that causes less pain on injection and less cardiovascular depression than propofol (the most widely used intravenous anesthetic in the outpatient setting). Unfortunately, emergence from anesthesia after ambulatory surgery is slower with eltanolone compared with propofol. Therefore, it is unlikely that eltanolone will replace propofol for outpatient anesthesia.