RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: We aim to compare the degree of pain control and complications in three types of anesthesia using periprostatic nerve block (PPNB) plus intrarectal local anesthesia (IRLA), low-dose spinal anesthesia, and intravenous (IV) sedation in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this clinical trial study, 106 patients were participated from December 2015 to December 2016 at Alzahra Hospital, Isfahan, Iran. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups to receive PPNB plus IRLA (n = 36), low-dose spinal anesthesia (n = 35) and IV sedation (n = 35) before TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. Pain scores were recorded using a 10 point visual analog scale right after the biopsy was done. Early and late complications were assessed using a questionnaire after the procedure and in follow-up of patients. RESULTS: Overall, the pain score in the low-dose spinal anesthesia group was significantly lower than PPNB plus IRLA and IV sedation groups (P < 0.001). The differences in pain scores between PPNB plus IRLA group and IV sedation group were not significant (P = 0.30). Urinary retraction and fever were significantly more frequent in low-dose spinal anesthesia and IV sedation, retrospectively (P = 0.04, P = 0.03). No significant difference in late complications was found among the groups. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that low-dose spinal anesthesia is superior to PPNB plus IRLA and IV sedation in terms of pain controlling and was associated with higher tolerance of the examination and patient comfort.
RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical study. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine what percentage of patients who underwent nonoperative management of unilateral non-displaced or minimally displaced facet fractures progressed radiographically and to determine what percentage of patients required surgical intervention and to identify risk factors for failure of conservative management. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: According to most commonly used classification systems, unilateral, non-and minimally displaced facet fractures are be amendable to nonoperative management. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Trauma Registry of a Level I trauma center was performed to identify all patients diagnosed with a non- or minimally displaced unilateral facet fracture which was managed nonoperatively. Several demographic variables and clinical outcomes were recorded. Using computed tomography scanning and plain radiographs, fracture pattern, listhesis, displacement, angle and percentage of the facet that included the fracture were determined. Radiographic progression was defined as the occurrence of listhesis of more than 10% of the anterior-posterior dimensions of the inferior vertebral body during radiographic follow-up. Failure of conservative management was defined as a patient requiring surgical intervention after initially being managed nonoperatively. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were included. Fifteen patients (20%) progressed radiographically. However, only 2 developed radicular symptoms and none developed myelopathy or other catastrophic cord related symptoms. Seven patients (9%) underwent surgery. Indications for surgery included significant radiographic progression and/or radicular symptoms. Risk factors for failure of conservative management included presence of radiculopathy at the time of presentation, a higher body mass index, increased Injury Severity Score, greater initial fracture displacement and more than 2 mm of listhesis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with non-displaced or minimally displaced facet fractures who do not have neurological symptoms at the time of presentation can safely be managed conservatively with careful observation and follow-up.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In this randomized, double-blinded study, we investigated the preemptive effects of propofol, remifentanil or ketamine on post-operative pain scores and analgesic requirements in elective lower abdominal surgeries under general anesthesia during the first 24 h of post-operative period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy five patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II candidate for elective lower abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were randomized to three groups (25 each). According to their allocated group, patients received either propofol 0.25 mg/kg, remifentanil 0.25 mic/kg or ketamine 0.3 mg/kg as preemptive analgesia immediately after the induction of general anesthesia. Post-operative pain scores with a numerical rating scale (visual analogue scale 0-10) were assessed and analgesic requirements and side-effects were compared through analysis using the SPSS version 18 in the post-operative period; post-anesthesia care unit 2, 6, 12 and 24 h. RESULTS: Patients' demographics were similar in all groups. The pain scores were significantly lower in remifentanil group immediately after recovery and also at 2 and 6 h post-operatively, but it reversed at 12 and 24 h after recovery comparing with propofol and ketamine. However, the mean of administered morphine in the first 24 h was significantly lower in propofol group (18.97 ± 6.6) comparing with remifentanil group (21.96 ± 6.55) and ketamine group (24.26 ± 5.84) (P value, 0.01). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic preemptive single dose of intravenous (IV) 0.25 mg/kg propofol significantly decreased post-operative analgesia requirements comparing with IV 0.3 mg/kg ketamine or 0.25 µg/kg remifentanil.