Search

Abstract: Postoperative analgesia at home induces necessarily pain assessment by self-report or observational measure. A special scale has been validated for day-case surgery: the PPMP. Nevertheless, children''s and parents’ information and education are essential. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Objectives: To compare the Classic™ laryngeal mask airway (MLC) and the ProSeal™ LMA (MLP), size 2 and 2.5 in terms of ease of insertion, leak pressure and side effects during insertion and extraction in the recovery room. Study type: Randomised prospective. Material and method: All children between 10 and 30 kg scheduled for general anaesthesia with laryngeal mask (ML) were included. There was no imposed protocol for the anaesthesia. The ML size was determined according to the child''s weight. The MLC was inserted using the standard technique. The MLP was inserted following the recommendations, with or without the handle according to the operator''s choice. The data analysed were: insertion type, ease of insertion of the mask, of the nasogastric tube (SG), number of attempts of mask insertion, complications, gastric leaks. Results: One hundred (and) twenty children were included. There was no statistical difference in terms of difficulty of insertion, number of failed attempts, leak pressure or side effects. The use of the handle did not make insertion easier. Insertion of a nasogastric tube was possible in 92% cases. Conclusion: MLP is as easy to use in children as the MLC. MLP has the advantage of allowing rapid access to the stomach. It seems that the MLP is safer since its correct position is confirmed by easy gastric tube insertion. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Objective: To investigate the procedures used by French anaesthesiologists in children undergoing MRI. Methods: A questionnaire was sent by Internet to every university hospital in France. Information concerning the specialty of the doctor in charge of the child, the age of the children, premedication, airway control, the agents used, presence of a specific recovery room, length of hospitalization and number of children undergoing MRI was obtained. Results: Out of the 28 hospitals contacted, one did not reply and two did not perform anaesthesia for MRI. In 80% of cases, paediatric anaesthesiologists were in charge of the children. Only one team applied an age limit and performed sedation only in children over 10 kg. Specific monitoring for MRI was used by all teams. Premedication was given in 52% of cases. Parents were present during induction in 52% of cases. Sevoflurane was used in 52%, propofol in 40% and propofol with sufentanil in 8%. Presence of a venous line is systematic in 92% of cases. Intubation is systematic in 36% of cases, laryngeal mask in 20%, one or the other in 24%, and face mask and/or oral canula in 20%. The most widely used ventilation mode is spontaneous breathing (52%). All children go to the recovery room, which was close to the MRI unit in only 48% of cases and was less than 1 hour away in 72%. In 83% of cases, MRI is performed on a day-case basis and the number of procedures varies from 4 to 30 per week. Conclusion: While there is no standard anaesthetic protocol in France for children undergoing MRI, only specialist teams undertake such procedures. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]