label: url

en: Postoperative nausea and vomiting following lower limb surgery :a comparison between single-injection intraarticular anesthesia and continuous epidural anesthesia.

en: Study Objective : the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following single-injection intraarticular anesthesia was compared to that following continuous epidural anesthesia. Design : Prospective, double-blind, randomized study. Setting : University-affiliated teaching hospital. Patients : Forty-eight patients finally participated in this study, and each group contained twenty-four patients. Interventions : Patients scheduled to undergo lower limb surgery under general anesthesia were randomly allocated into two groups, to receive either single-injection intraarticular or continuous epidural anesthesia for postoperative analgesia. Measurements : The incidence and severity of PONV, complete response rates (i.e., no vomiting or rescue antiemetic use), and pain scores were recorded 2, 24, and 48 h postoperatively. Main results : No significant differences between groups were observed in the incidence and severity of PONV, rescue antiemetic use, or complete response rate at any of the time points, but only the use of rescue analgesics was significantly less in continuous epidural anesthesia group during the 2-24h postoperative period (P=0.04). Conclusion : While the use of single-injection intraarticular anesthesia following lower limb surgery did not prevent PONV more than continuous epidural anesthesia in this study, the intraarticular technique still provides greater simplicity, safety, and cost-effectiveness. J. Med. Invest. 66 : 303-307, August, 2019.

en: The Journal of Medical Investigation : JMI


en: Effects of Nicorandil Versus Nitroglycerin on Arterial Oxygenation During Two-Lung Ventilation and One-Lung Ventilation in Patients With Risk Factors for Myocardial Ischemia: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study.

en: This study demonstrated that oxygenation during TLV and OLV was significantly higher in patients receiving nicorandil than in those receiving nitroglycerin.

ja: at TLV (479.7 ± 57.1 v 408.2 ± 70.9 mmHg, p < 0.001); and at 5 minutes (344.8 ± 85.1 v 282.6 ± 85.8 mmHg, p = 0.012), 20 minutes (215.7 ± 103.0 v 158.2 ± 74.5 mmHg, p = 0.027), and 30 minutes (198.8 ± 103.5 v 147.5 ± 64.1 mmHg, p = 0.039) after OLV was significantly higher in the nicorandil group than in the nitroglycerin group.

en: Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia


en: The Efficacy of Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus for Postoperative Analgesia after Open Gynecological Surgery: A Randomized Double-Blinded Study.

en: It is well known that the programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) technique effectively provides epidural anesthesia in labor. This randomized double-blind trial compared the postoperative analgesic efficacy of PIEB with that of continuous epidural infusion (CEI) in patients undergoing gynecological surgery under combined general-epidural anesthesia. Patients undergoing open gynecological surgery under combined general-epidural anesthesia were randomized at a 1 : 1 ratio to receive PIEB or CEI. In the PIEB group, the pump delivered 4L ropivacaine 0.2% plus fentanyl 2 g/mL every hour. In the CEI group, the pump delivered the same solution at a rate of 4L/h. In both groups, additional 4L boluses of ropivacaine 0.2% plus fentanyl 2 g/mL were provided, when necessary, by patient-controlled epidural analgesia after surgery. The primary outcome was the total ropivacaine dose 40 hours after surgery. The secondary outcomes were the number of PCEA boluses and postoperative pain (evaluated on an 11-point numerical rating scale) 3, 24, and 48 hours after surgery. In total, 57 patients were randomized ( = 28 and 29 in the PIEB and CEI groups, resp.). The two groups differ significantly in terms of the total ropivacaine dose 40 hours after surgery (mean (standard deviation): 155.38 (4.55) versus 159.73 (7.87)L, = 0.016). Compared to the CEI group, the PIEB group had significantly lower numerical rating scale scores 3 hours (median [lower-upper quartiles]: 0 [0-0.5] versus 3 [0-5.5], = 0.002), 24 hours (1 [0-2] versus 3 [1-4], = 0.003), and 48 hours (1 [0-2] versus 2 [2-3.5], = 0.002) after surgery. PIEB was better than CEI in terms of providing postoperative analgesia after open gynecological surgery under combined general-epidural anesthesia.

en: BioMed Research International

ja: BioMed Research International


en: Effectiveness of using non-invasive continuous arterial pressure monitoring with ClearSight in hemodynamic monitoring during living renal transplantation in a recipient:a case report.

en: We investigated the effectiveness of the ClearSight system for hemodynamic management during kidney transplantation for a recipient. The recipient was to receive a kidney transplant from his mother under general anesthesia. We used continuous noninvasive finger-cuff-based monitoring of blood pressure, provided by the ClearSight system, and stroke volume variation to predict fluid responsiveness. We used of a balanced anesthetic technique and stringent monitoring standards to ensure a successful outcome for the patient. This case demonstrated that ClearSight has the potential to improve patient monitoring in hemodynamically stable patients who received kidney transplantation under general anesthesia. J. Med. Invest. 65:139-141, February, 2018.

ja: The Journal of Medical Investigation : JMI


en: Noninvasive continuous blood pressure monitoring by the ClearSight system during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

en: Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) is commonly performed in the surgical treatment of prostate cancer. However, the steep Trendelenburg position (25) and pneumoperitoneum required for this procedure can sometimes cause hemodynamic changes. Although blood pressure is traditionally monitored invasively during RALRP, the ClearSight system (BMEYE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) enables a totally noninvasive and simple continuous blood pressure and cardiac output monitoring based on finger arterial pressure pulse contour analysis. We therefore investigated whether noninvasive continuous arterial blood pressure measurements using the ClearSight system were comparable to those obtained invasively in patients undergoing RALRP. Ten patients scheduled for RALRP with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II were included in this study. At each of the seven defined time points, noninvasive and invasive blood pressure measurements were documented and compared in each patient using Bland-Altman analysis. Although the blood pressure measured with the ClearSight system correlated with that measured invasively, a large difference between the values obtained by the two devices was noted. The ClearSight system was unable to detect blood pressure accurately during RALRP, suggesting that blood pressure monitoring using this device alone is not feasible in this small patient population. J. Med. Invest. 65:69-73, February, 2018.