The outcome of abdominoplasty performed under conscious sedation: six-year experience in 153 consecutive cases

The use of conscious sedation is rapidly gaining acceptance and popularity in plastic surgery. At the present time, many procedures are performed using intravenous sedation and local anesthesia. The purpose of this article was to examine the safety and outcome of full abdominoplasties performed under conscious sedation at the authors' institution. Over a 6-year period from 1997 to 2002, 266 abdominoplasties were performed by the two senior authors. One hundred thirteen of these (42 percent) were performed under a general or regional anesthetic because a concurrent procedure was performed that precluded the use of conscious sedation (64 hysterectomies, 18 hernia repairs, six urogynecologic procedures, 10 breast reductions, and one laparoscopic cholecystectomy) or because of patient and surgeon preference (14 cases). One hundred fifty-three abdominoplasties (58 percent) were performed under conscious sedation using intravenous midazolam and fentanyl along with a local anesthetic. No patients had an unplanned conversion to deep sedation or general anesthesia. Eighty percent of these cases were performed with a concurrent procedure (80 liposuctions, 19 breast augmentations, 20 mastopexies, three capsulotomies, and 13 varied facial aesthetic procedures). In addition, 12 patients had concurrent hernia repairs (five ventral and seven umbilical) under conscious sedation. Mean follow-up was 10 months (range, 1 to 56 months). There were no intraoperative complications and no major postoperative complications. The minor complication rate was 11.1 percent (10 seromas requiring needle aspiration in the office, three superficial wound infections, two cases of marginal skin necrosis, one stitch abscess, and one pseudobursa requiring reexcision). Seven revisions were performed for suboptimal scars (5 percent). The results of this study demonstrate that abdominoplasties can be performed under conscious sedation in a safe and cost-effective manner for almost all patients. This type of procedure is well tolerated, has a low complication rate, and has high patient satisfaction. Increasing experience and small modifications in local anesthesia and surgical technique have strengthened the authors' conviction that conscious sedation is the preferred method of anesthesia for most patients undergoing abdominoplasty.     

An outcome study comparing intravenous sedation with midazolam/fentanyl (conscious sedation) versus propofol infusion (deep sedation) for aesthetic surgery

The purpose of this study was to determine the differences in measurable outcomes following aesthetic procedures performed under intravenous sedation with incremental doses of midazolam and fentanyl and those performed under propofol infusion. The authors' hypothesis was that the differences in these outcome parameters are not significant between these intravenous sedation protocols. All intraoperative and perioperative records of 84 consecutive patients having aesthetic surgery under a conscious sedation protocol using incremental doses of intravenous midazolam and fentanyl were retrospectively reviewed and compared with the records of a second group of 85 patients having aesthetic surgery under a deep sedation regimen based primarily on propofol infusion. All procedures were hospital based and performed by two surgeons. Twenty-eight different parameters were examined by chart review. In addition, a patient questionnaire was used to assess patient satisfaction and patient recall of operative and perioperative pain, anxiety, nausea, and vomiting. Multivariate statistical analysis was conducted. The two sedation groups were similar with regard to aesthetic procedures performed and patient demographics. The mean duration of operative time was statistically equivalent (152 minutes and 153 minutes). In both groups, there were minor adverse intraoperative events reported but no significant complications. Transient hypotension was more common in the propofol infusion group (12.9 percent versus 2.4 percent, p = 0.018), but no patient required intervention beyond reducing the sedative agent or increasing intravenous fluids. The amount of supplemental fentanyl given intraoperatively was significantly higher in the group whose primary agent for sedation was propofol infusion than the group who received midazolam/fentanyl (209 mug and 143 mug, respectively). The overall questionnaire response rate was 80 percent for both groups. The midazolam/fentanyl sedation group had more recall of "unpleasant intraoperative events" (17 percent versus 3 percent, p = 0.007). However, both groups had low recall of intraoperative pain, anxiety, and nausea. The propofol infusion group experienced significantly more nausea in the recovery room (p = 0.002), nausea at the time of discharge (p = 0.009), and nausea the evening after the operation (p = 0.013). Greater than 90 percent of the patients in both groups would have the same anesthetic in the future rather than undergo general anesthesia. Patient safety, outcomes, and satisfaction are similar in plastic surgery procedures performed under sedation protocols using either incremental doses of midazolam and fentanyl or propofol infusion. All operative and postoperative outcomes for pain, anxiety, and vomiting were similar in the two groups except for immediate postoperative nausea, which was higher in the propofol infusion group. The overall satisfaction of patients undergoing plastic surgery procedures under these intravenous sedation protocols appears very high.     

The prevention of emesis in plastic surgery: a randomized,prospective study

Perhaps the most unpleasant experience following outpatient plastic surgery procedures is postoperative nausea and vomiting. Postoperative nausea and vomiting often results in delayed recovery time and unintended admission, and it can be a contributing factor to the formation of hematoma following rhytidectomy. Ondansetron (Zofran) has proven benefit in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting if given before general anesthesia in a variety of surgical procedures. Its utility in cases performed under conscious sedation has not been determined. The purpose of this study was (1) to test the ability of prophylactic ondansetron to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in plastic surgery cases performed under conscious sedation, and (2) to determine relative risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting and a selection policy for the administration of antiemetic prophylaxis. This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. One hundred twenty patients were enrolled after giving informed consent. Patients received a single dose of either placebo or ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) before administration of sedation. Sedation administration followed a standardized institutional protocol, using midazolam and fentanyl. Data were recorded from a series of three questionnaires: preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at the time of the first office return. Data were confirmed by means of telephone interview, chart analysis, and nursing documentation. Multivariate analysis was conducted. Nausea and emesis occurred with an overall frequency of 33 percent and 22 percent, respectively. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was associated with statistically longer recovery periods. The incidence of emesis was statistically higher among women, among those undergoing facial rejuvenation, and among those with a history of opioid-induced emesis or postoperative nausea and vomiting following a previous operation (p < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting paralleled increases in case duration; the incidence of emesis was zero in cases less than 90 minutes in duration. Ondansetron significantly reduced the incidence of emesis overall (placebo, 30 percent; ondansetron, 13 percent; p < 0.05). Postoperative perception of nausea was significantly lower among those who had received ondansetron (p < 0.05). These results confirm the efficacy of ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in plastic surgery cases under conscious sedation. In those who are at increased risk, prophylaxis should be considered. Such risks include female gender, facial rejuvenation procedures, and a patient history of opioid-induced emesis or postoperative nausea and vomiting following a prior operation. The zero incidence of emesis in cases less than 90 minutes does not support the routine use of prophylaxis in such cases. Patient satisfaction in plastic surgery is derived from the overall subjective experience of the event as much as by the final result. By remaining attentive to patient concerns and optimizing perioperative care, we can improve the subjective experience for our patients.     

Optimization of conscious sedation in plastic surgery.

The administration of conscious sedation by the plastic surgeon must be safe, efficient, and consistent. In the proper setting, with trained staff and appropriate backup, conscious sedation can allow optimal patient satisfaction with expedient recovery in addition to cost containment. The highly effective local anesthesia afforded by dilute, high-volume ("tumescent") infiltration extends the use of conscious sedation to cases previously performed under general anesthesia or deep sedation. The purpose of this analysis was to identify variables in conscious sedation that affect traditional outcome parameters in ambulatory surgery, particularly the duration of recovery and adverse events such as nausea and emesis. All perioperative and operative records of 300 consecutive patients having plastic surgical procedures under conscious sedation were carefully reviewed. Patients were ASA class I or II by requisite. Conscious sedation followed a standardized administration protocol, using incremental doses of two agents: midazolam (0.25 to 1 mg) and fentanyl (12.5 to 50 mcg). A subset of patients received preoperative oral sedation. Multivariate statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 8.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill.). Of the 300 patients, same-day discharge was intended for 281. Eight procedure categories were defined. No anesthetic complications occurred. As expected, recovery time was significantly correlated with the duration and type of procedure (p < 0.001) and the total dosage of both intraoperative sedative agents (p < 0.001). Interestingly, a negative correlation with advancing age existed (p < 0.001), likely reflecting the significantly higher intraoperative sedative dosing in younger patients (p < 0.001). When controlled for the effects of procedure duration and intraoperative sedative dosing, two other variables-use of preoperative oral sedation and postoperative nausea/emesis-significantly lengthened recovery time (p = 0.0001 for each). Fifteen unintended admissions occurred secondary to nausea, prolonged drowsiness, or pain control needs. Conscious sedation is an effective anesthetic choice for routine plastic surgical procedures, many of which would commonly be performed under general anesthesia. In our experience with a carefully structured and controlled conscious sedation protocol, the technique has proven to be safe and effective. This analysis of outcome parameters identified two important and potentially avoidable causes of recovery delay following conscious sedation-oral premedication and nausea/emesis. Nausea and emesis were particularly problematic in that they were responsible for 11 of 15 (73 percent) unintended admissions. Preoperative sedation is valuable in certain circumstances, and its use is not discouraged; however, its benefits must be weighed against its unwanted effects, which can include a prolongation of recovery.     

Conscious Sedation Procedures Using Intravenous Midazolam for Dental Care in Patients with Different Cognitive Profiles: A Prospective Study of Effectiveness and Safety

The use of midazolam for dental care in patients with intellectual disability is poorly documented. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of conscious sedation procedures using intravenous midazolam in adults and children with intellectual disability (ID) compared to dentally anxious patients (DA). Ninety-eight patients with ID and 44 patients with DA programmed for intravenous midazolam participated in the study over 187 and 133 sessions, respectively. Evaluation criteria were success of dental treatment, cooperation level (modified Venham scale), and occurrence of adverse effects. The mean intravenous dose administered was 8.8±4.9 mg and 9.8±4.1 mg in ID and DA sessions respectively (t-test, NS). 50% N₂O/O₂ was administered during cannulation in 51% of ID sessions and 61% of DA sessions (NS, Fisher exact test). Oral or rectal midazolam premedication was administered for cannulation in 31% of ID sessions and 3% of DA sessions (p<0,001, Fisher exact test). Dental treatment was successful in 9 out of 10 sessions for both groups. Minor adverse effects occurred in 16.6% and 6.8% of ID and DA sessions respectively (p = 0.01, Fisher exact test). Patients with ID were more often very disturbed during cannulation (25.4% ID vs. 3.9% DA sessions) and were less often relaxed after induction (58.9% ID vs. 90.3% DA) and during dental treatment (39.5% ID vs. 59.7% DA) (p<0.001, Fisher exact test) than patients with DA. When midazolam sedation was repeated, cooperation improved for both groups. Conscious sedation procedures using intravenous midazolam, with or without premedication and/or inhalation sedation (50% N₂O/O₂), were shown to be safe and effective in patients with intellectual disability when administered by dentists.     

清醒镇静与深度镇静在食管胃底静脉曲张内镜诊疗术的麻醉效果及安全性分析

摘要 目的：研究在清醒镇静与深度镇静下实施食管胃底静脉曲张内镜诊疗术的麻醉效果及安全性分析。方法：选取在我院2020年5月至2022年5月收治的94例食管胃底静脉曲张患者，按照随机数字表法将静脉曲张患者分为对照组和观察组，每组47例。对照组采用清醒镇静（咪达唑仑+芬太尼），观察组采用深度镇静在对照组基础上增加丙泊酚。观察对照组与观察组手术治疗时患者基生命体征变化以及手术治疗后的麻醉效果及安全性。比较两组患者治疗后治疗后的总有效率。结果：观察组总有效率显著高于对照组，差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。观察组出院时间、麻醉达标时间及术后拔管时间显著小于对照组，差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。各时间点实验组患者HR相比差异无显著性（P＞0.05）。在T2，T3，T4时，实验组患者MAP、HR均较对照组显著降低（P＜0.05）。两组患者手术时Ramsay评分和术后满意度比较，两组患者均无统计学差异。对照组和观察组不良反应发生率分别为12.75%和8.49%，两组比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论：深度镇静对于食管胃底静脉曲张行内镜诊疗疗效显著而且安全可靠，疗程短，见效快，恢复快，患者接受程度高,提高治疗成功率，值得进行推广。     

婴幼儿机械通气时使用右旋美托咪定和咪达唑仑的效果评价

目的:比较婴幼儿在机械通气镇静时使用右旋美托咪定和咪达唑仑效果。方法:收集我院2009年2月至2011年10月入住ICU需要机械通气且镇静时间大于24h的患儿60例,随机分为3组,每组20例,右旋美托咪啶1组(输注剂量为0.25μg.kg-1.h-1,D1组)、2组(输注剂量为0.5μg.kg-1.h-1,D2组)维持镇静,咪达唑仑组(输注剂量为0.05 mg.kg-1.h-1,M组)维持镇静。同时根据病情需要间断给予吗啡镇痛。镇静的疗效评估采用Ramsay镇静评分以及脑电双屏指数(BIS)评价。结果:60例患儿分为3组,每组20例,咪达唑仑组(M组)的输注持续时间(h)为22±8 h,0.25μg(D1组)和0.5μg(D2组)右旋美托咪啶组输注持续时间分别为21±10 h和22±9 h;M组的平均输注速率为0.22±0.05 mg.kg-1.h-1,D1组和D2组平均输注速率分别为0.28±0.07μg.kg-1.h-1和0.21±0.05μg.kg-1.h-1;三组差异无统计学意义。其中M组、D1组、D2组使用吗啡的剂量是分别为36 mg.kg-1.24h-1、29 mg.kg-1.24h-1和20mg.kg-.124h-1。D1组与M组使用吗啡的剂量差异无统计学意义。D2组与M组使用吗啡的剂量差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。三组患儿BIS值和Ramsay评分监测差异无统计学意义。结论:右旋美托咪啶应用于婴幼儿是安全有效的,0.5μg.kg-1.h-1右旋美托咪啶组镇静更加有效,24小时吗啡的使用剂量显著减少。     

Sedative and cardiovascular effects of midazolam in swine.

The ability to reliably produce sedation in swine is hampered by the paucity of agents available. This project examined the use of a new water soluble benzodiazepine, midazolam, as a sedative in swine. Echocardiographic studies were performed on thirty 23 to 30 kg Yorkshire swine before and 20 minutes after each animal received a single intramuscular dose of 100 micrograms/kg midazolam. Heart rate and respiratory rate decreased significantly compared to nonsedated values (93 +/- 7 versus 117 +/- 2 bpm and 10 +/- 1 versus 20 +/- 1 breaths/min, respectively [p less than 0.05]). However, there was no effect on left ventricular fractional shortening (29.9 greater than 0.05 versus 29.5 +/- 0.05% [p greater than 0.05]). An additional five pigs were instrumented for a dose response study in order to collect hemodynamic data and blood gas values at baseline, and 15 min after the intravenous administration of incremental doses of midazolam (100 to 1,000 micrograms/kg). Despite a significant decrease in heart rate and respiratory rate, cardiac output, blood gases, and pH remained within normal ranges at all dosage levels. Both routes of administration produced sedation for 20 min in all animals. Midazolam is an effective swine sedative that is associated with stable cardiac function.     

Comparison of midazolam and diazepam for sedation during plastic surgery

A randomized double-blind study was designed to compare midazolam, a rapid-acting water-soluble benzodiazepine, with diazepam for sedation when administered as an adjuvant to ketamine during local anesthesia. In the preliminary dose-ranging study, midazolam (0.05 to 0.15 mg/kg IV) was found to produce a spectrum of central nervous system activity (e.g., sedation, amnesia) that was similar to diazepam (0.1 to 0.3 mg/kg IV). However, the slope of midazolam's dose-response curve for sedation appeared to be steeper (i.e., a narrower therapeutic dosage range). In a comparative evaluation of their relative sedative-amnestic properties and recovery characteristics, the median effective doses of the two benzodiazepines were compared. Midazolam (0.1 mg/kg IV) was found to produce more profound sedation and amnesia than diazepam (0.2 mg/kg IV). Midazolam was associated with significantly less pain on injection and a lower incidence of postoperative venoirritation. Overall patient acceptance was higher with midazolam compared to diazepam. Finally, recovery characteristics were similar for the two benzodiazepines in our outpatient setting.     

Propofol infusion for sedation in the intensive care unit: preliminary report.

Propofol (2,6,di-isopropylphenol) was given by continuous intravenous infusion to provide sedation after cardiac surgery in 30 patients and its effects compared with those of midazolam given to a further 30 patients. Propofol infusion allowed rapid and accurate control of the level of sedation, which was satisfactory for longer than with midazolam. Patients given propofol recovered significantly more rapidly from their sedation once they had fulfilled the criteria for weaning from artificial ventilation and as a result spent a significantly shorter time attached to a ventilator. There were no serious complications in either group. Both medical and nursing staff considered the propofol infusion to be superior to midazolam in these patients. These findings suggest that propofol is a suitable replacement for etomidate and alphaxalone-alphadolone for sedating patients receiving intensive care.     

Investigation of the potentiation of the analgesic effects of fentanyl by ketamine in humans: a double-blinded, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover study of experimental pain[ISRCTN83088383]

BACKGROUND: Despite preclinical evidence suggesting a synergistic interaction between ketamine and opioids promoting analgesia, several clinical trials have not identified dosing regimens capable of eliciting a benefit in the co-administration of ketamine with opioids. METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers participated in a double blinded, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover laboratory study in order to determine whether a low dose of ketamine potentiated the antinociceptive effect of fentanyl without causing an increase in sedative effects. A battery of tests was used to assess both nociception and sedation including electrical current, pressure, thermal stimuli, psychometric tests, and both subjective and objective scores of sedation. Target controlled infusions of the study drugs were used. Ketamine and fentanyl were administered alone and in combination in a double-blinded randomised crossover design. Saline was used as the control, and propofol was used to validate the tests of sedation. Cardiovascular and respiratory parameters were also assessed. RESULTS: The electrical current pain threshold dose response curve of fentanyl combined with ketamine was markedly steeper than the dose response curve of fentanyl alone. While a ketamine serum concentration of 30 ng/ml did not result in a change in electrical pain threshold when administered alone, when it was added to fentanyl, the combination resulted in greater increase in pain threshold than that of fentanyl administered alone. When nociception was assessed using heat and pressure stimuli, ketamine did not potentiate the anti-nociceptive effect of fentanyl. There was no difference between the sedative effect of fentanyl and fentanyl in combination with ketamine as assessed by both subjective and objective measures of sedation. Cardiovascular and respiratory parameters were unaffected by the study drugs at the doses given. CONCLUSION: A serum concentration of ketamine that did not alter indices of sedation potentiated the antinociceptive effect of fentanyl. This potentiation of antinociception occurred without an increase in sedation suggesting that low steady doses of ketamine (30-120 ng/ml) might be combined with mu opioid agonists to improve their analgesic effect in a clinical setting. (296 words).     

Sedation for stereotactic headframe application: a randomized comparison of two techniques

A prospective, randomized study was performed in 87 patients to compare the safety, efficacy and dose requirements of two sedation techniques for stereotactic headframe application. Sedation administration and headframe application averaged 30 min. Fifty patients weighing 76 +/- 13 kg (mean +/- SD) received mean doses of 154 micrograms fentanyl plus 5.5 mg droperidol i.v. (FD group). An additional 37 patients weighing 76 +/- 19 kg received mean doses of 127 micrograms fentanyl plus 6.7 mg Valium (diazepam; FV group). Both treatments provided excellent hemodynamic stability and a low incidence of adverse side effects while providing adequate analgesia and sedation. The incidence of anesthetist-assessed patient anxiety and discomfort was more favorable in the FD group.     

Low-dose propofol infusion for sedation during local anesthesia

The safety and efficacy of lose-dose propofol for sedation were investigated on 90 consenting patients who had undergone surgical procedures with local anesthesia. After being premedicated with intravenous midazolam 0.05 mg.kg(-1), all patients were randomly divided into two groups and received intravenously either a loading dose of propofol 0.8 mg.kg(-1) followed by a continuous infusion of propofol 30 microg.kg(-1)min(-1) (propofol group) or an equivalent volume of saline (placebo group) during operation. Study groups were compared with respect to the level of sedation, hemodynamic variables, oxygen saturation, and the incidence of intraoperative side effects. In addition, the discharge time and the satisfaction of both patients and surgeons with this sedative technique were assessed. Propofol reduced patients' discomfort and lowered their arterial pressure and heart rate during the infiltration of local anesthetics. It also promoted an adequate level of sedation without clinically significant oxygen desaturation in the intraoperative period. Surgeons and patients in the propofol group showed a higher level of satisfaction than those in the placebo group. There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the incidence of adverse effects and the discharge time. In conclusion, it was found that the use of low-dose propofol infusion was a safe and effective sedative technique for local anesthesia.     

The Effect of Transdermal Delivery of Fentanyl on Activity in Growing Pigs

Recently, decreased activity levels have been observed in pigs treated postoperatively with transdermal delivery of fentanyl (TD-fentanyl) after isoflurane anaesthesia. Whether the change in behaviour is related to opioid-induced sedation or to insufficient pain relief remains to be investigated. This study was therefore undertaken to evaluate the effect of TD-fentanyl 50 μg h^-1 on the activity level with and without isoflurane anaesthesia. Eight pigs (25.4 ± 5.2 kg) were submitted to a cross-over study and given two treatments; 1) fentanyl patch applied after 30 minutes of anaesthesia (treatment A/F) and 2) fentanyl patch without anaesthesia (treatment F). The pigs' behaviour was observed from a video recording instantaneously every 10 minutes for 24 h before treatments and up to 72 h after the patch attachment. Venous blood samples were taken 1, 6, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h after the patch application. The behaviour recordings showed that TD-fentanyl did not produce sedation in any pig. No differences were found between the two treatments in activity level, weight gain or serum fentanyl concentration. This concentration measured after 24 h was 0.27 ± 0.11 ng ml^-1 and 0.47 ± 0.40 ng ml^-1 in the A/F and F group, respectively.     

Propofol versus Midazolam for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Cirrhotic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BackgroundSedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is often achieved using propofol or midazolam in general population. However, impaired protein synthesis, altered drug metabolism, and compromised hepatic blood flow in patients with liver cirrhosis might affect the pharmacokinetics of sedatives, placing cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy at a greater risk of adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess comparative efficacies and safety of propofol and midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy.MethodsRandomized, controlled trials comparing propofol with midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were selected. We performed the meta-analysis, using a random-effect model, the Review Manager, Version 5.2, statistical software package (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) according to the PRISMA guidelines.ResultsFive studies between 2003 and 2012, including 433 patients, were included. Propofol provided a shorter time to sedation (weight mean difference: -2.76 min, 95% confidence interval: -3.00 to -2.51) and a shorter recovery time (weight mean difference -6.17 min, 95% confidence interval: -6.81 to -5.54) than midazolam did. No intergroup difference in the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, or hypoxemia was observed. Midazolam was associated with the deterioration of psychometric scores for a longer period than propofol.ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that Propofol sedation for endoscopy provides more rapid sedation and recovery than midazolam does. The risk of sedation-related side effects for propofol does not differ significantly from that of midazolam. The efficacy of propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy is superior to those of midazolam.     

Intranasal midazolam in piglets: pharmacodynamics (0.2 vs 0.4 mg/kg) and pharmacokinetics (0.4 mg/kg) with bioavailability determination

Intranasal midazolam was studied in two series of piglets: series 1, n = 20 (18 +/- 3 kg), a randomized double blind pharmacodynamic study to compare doses of 0.2 mg/kg and 0.4 mg/kg; series 2, n = 9 (42 +/- 8 kg), a pharmacokinetic study with a 0.4 mg/kg dose administered either intravenously (i.v.) or intranasally (i.n.) in a cross-over protocol with a one-week wash-out period between each. In series 1, midazolam caused significant anxiolysis and sedation within 3 to 4 min, without a significant difference between 0.2 and 0.4 mg/kg doses for any of the studied parameters. In series 2, after intranasal midazolam administration of 0.4 mg/kg, plasma concentrations attained a maximum (Cmax) of 0.13 +/- 0.04 mg/l at 5 min (median Tmax) and remained higher than 0.04 mg/l until 60 min. The bioavailability factor (F) in this study was F = 0.64 +/- 0.17 by the intranasal route. The terminal half-life (T1/2 lambda z) = 145 +/- 138 min was comparable with the i.v. administration half-life (158 +/- 127 min). In conclusion, optimal intranasal midazolam dose in piglets was 0.2 mg/kg, which procures rapid and reliable sedation, adapted to laboratory piglets.     

Isoflurane compared with midazolam for sedation in the intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE--To compare isoflurane with midazolam for sedation of ventilated patients. DESIGN--Randomised control study. Setting--Intensive care unit in university teaching hospital. PATIENTS--Sixty patients aged 18-76 who required mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS--Sedation with either 0.1-0.6% isoflurane in an air-oxygen mixture (30 patients) or a continuous intravenous infusion of midazolam 0.01-0.20 mg/kg/h (30 patients). Sedation was assessed initially and hourly thereafter on a six point scale. Incremental intravenous doses of morphine 0.05 mg/kg were given for analgesia as required. The trial sedative was stopped when the patient was judged ready for weaning from ventilatory support or at 24 hours (whichever was earlier). END POINT--Achievement of a predetermined level of sedation for as much of the time as possible. MAIN RESULTS--Isoflurane produced satisfactory sedation for a greater proportion of time (86%) than midazolam (64%), and patients sedated with isoflurane recovered more rapidly from sedation. CONCLUSION--Isoflurane is a promising alternative technique for sedation of ventilated patients in the intensive care unit.     

异丙酚复合芬太尼静脉麻醉镇痛对门诊人工流产术的影响

目的:观察异丙酚复合芬太尼静脉麻醉对于人工流产术时及术后的影响。方法:选择2001年3月——2001年9月在本院计划生育门诊就诊、自愿要求无痛人工流产的妇女120例作为无痛人工流产组(简称:无痛组),同期按常规方法行人工流产的妇女120例作为对照组(简称:对照组),进行配对研究。无痛组用异丙酚1.5mg/kg复合芬太尼2μg/kg诱导,术中用异丙酚维持,人工流产术按常规方法施行。结果:无痛组术中异丙酚用量为2.7±0.7mg/kg,芬太尼2μg/kg,术中无知觉,120例妇女均无疼痛主诉。对照组轻度疼痛82例(68.3％),中度疼痛33例(27.5％),重度疼痛3例(4.2％)。无痛组在麻醉诱导及维持期间均出现呼吸频率下降,通过控制呼吸、面罩吸氧,SaO_2可以保持在99％以上,不需气管插管。两组妇女术前及术后宫腔深度无明显差异(P>0.05)。无痛组术中出血量为32.2±23.2ml,对照组为19.8±15.9ml,无痛组较对照组明显增多,有极显著统计学差异(P<0.01)。结论:异丙酚复合芬太尼静脉麻醉对人工流产术的主要影响是手术的出血量略增多,但不影响子宫收缩及术后恶露持续时间,该麻醉是一种有效镇痛方法,适用于门诊人工流产术。     

Oral premedication for operations on the face under local anesthesia: a placebo-controlled double-blind trial.

Modern strategies for preventing or controlling pain and anxiety demand a premedication for operations using local anesthesia and for those using sedation or general anesthesia. For optimal patient care, the premedication should be given orally and, with respect to the outpatient basis of the operations, should have a short recovery period. Midazolam, one of the most favored premedications for general anesthesia, has been recommended as a premedication for operations using local anesthesia as well. However, midazolam has only sedative-anxiolytic effects and does not reduce pain sensation, which should be mandatory for operations using local anesthesia. A further requirement is the maintenance of stable hemodynamics for the prevention of postoperative hematomas, especially in the face. For these reasons, another premedication meeting all requirements (anxiolysis, analgesia, and stable hemodynamics) was researched. A randomized, double-blind prospective study was performed from March of 1997 to June of 1998. Five groups totalling 150 patients were included in the study; each group contained 30 patients who had operations performed solely on the face. In the first four groups, the effect of midazolam (0.15 mg/kg(-1)), morphine (0.3 mg/kg(-1)), and clonidine (1.5 microg/kg(-1)) administered orally was compared with a placebo. The fifth group was the control group and received no premedication. To evaluate the effects of the premedications, a corresponding questionnaire was completed independently by the patient and surgeon. With regard to the anxiolytic or analgesic properties of the premedication, 61 percent of the patients preferred pain reduction to anxiety control, and 24 percent of patients preferred reduction of anxiety. The remainder insisted on a reduction of both properties (8 percent) or had no preference (7 percent). Reduction of anxiety was largest in the midazolam and the clonidine groups, but the difference was not significant. The least pain during the application of local anesthesia was experienced by the morphine group (37 percent) and the clonidine group (33 percent), in contrast to the midazolam group (60 percent) (p = 0.04). Morphine and clonidine met the requirements of pain reduction equally well. Nevertheless, considering the rate and intensity of adverse effects with respect to hemodynamic compromises, nausea, and emesis, clonidine is even better suited as an oral premedication for operations on the face using local anesthesia.     

Marriage abdominoplasty expands the mini-abdominoplasty concept

The marriage of aggressive superwet liposculpture of the abdomen and adjacent anatomic regions with a modification of well-established open surgical techniques to address skin excess and perform muscle plication was used to treat 29 patients presenting for aesthetic abdominal contouring over the past 3 1/2 years. The charts of 57 patients who had aesthetic contouring procedures on the abdomen performed from December of 1994 to July of 1998 were retrospectively reviewed. Fifteen patients underwent suction lipectomy alone, 13 patients were treated with conventional abdominoplasty, and 29 underwent "marriage abdominoplasty." The 29 patients who underwent marriage abdominoplasty presented with deformities marked by excess lower abdominal skin and adipose tissue, with or without muscle laxity (Psillakis types II, III, and IV). Seventeen procedures were performed under local anesthesia with deep conscious sedation on an outpatient surgical basis. In 12 patients, the operation accompanied a hysterectomy, urologic procedure, or additional aesthetic surgical procedure(s) and was done under general anesthesia. Suction aspirates ranged between 540 and 2600 cc (mean, 1160 cc) and were accompanied by lower abdominal skin excision in every case, which was performed predominantly through short and medium-length incisions (mean, 15 cm). Rectus abdominis muscle plication was performed where necessary, using vertical plication of the infraumbilical rectus muscles in 27 patients (93 percent) and full-length plication in two patients (7 percent). All patients demonstrated significantly improved contours and have seemed to manifest less pain when compared with patients treated by full traditional abdominoplasty. Postoperative complications have included upper abdominal skin waviness (2), annoying paresthesias and discomfort persisting for 6 months (1), seroma (1), and marginal skin necrosis with an open wound (1). The latter problem occurred in the only patient who was treated with a revision procedure. Thus, the complication rate was 17 percent (5 of 29 patients). The marriage of aggressive superwet liposculpture of the entire abdomen with standard open surgical techniques used to treat skin excesses and allow abdominal muscle plication where necessary offers the advantage of reduced surgery when compared with full abdominoplasty, while consistently achieving significant contour improvement. This concept is applicable to the majority of patients presenting for the treatment of abdominal deformities and has markedly expanded the application of the mini-abdominoplasty concept.