0 05)respeetively before induction, which shoued no statistic difference between two groups.AEP index and BIS of two groups after induction were decreased to below 30 a nd 55 respeetively(T 1 vs. T 0 ,P0 01) ) . The changing tendency of the elderly group and the young group were identical a t all time points. Conclusions AEP index can be used for the anesthesia depth monitoring for the elderly without obvious auditory dysfunction during tracheal intubation.

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA)in children. Methods: Forty postoperative pediatric patients(5-11 years old)were divided into two groups. A and B. Both wereinstituted with postoperative PCEA with LCP model (loading dose 2.05 + 0.13ml), continuos infusion rate 0.82 + 0.15mi/h, PCA dose 0.81 + 0.16ml)by Graseby-9300 PCA pump. The PCEA solution of group A was 0.075% bupivacaine plus0.0012 % buprenorphine, that of group B was same while 0. 005% droperidol was added as an adjuvant. Results:The volumeof PCEA sdution consumption in group B was significantly less than that in group A on the first and second postoperative day (P< 0.01-0.05). Good analgesic efficiency with little side effects was obtained, as evaluated by the VASF emasay or D/D score and complications in two groups, but the analgesic effect of group B was better than that of group A. Conclusion: Thepediatric PCEA with low concentration of bupivaeaine plus buprenorphine is feasible and safe. Droperidol may enhance theanalgesic effects of PCEA.

To determine the differences in analgesic, hemodynamic and ventilatory effects between epidural and intravenous midazolam (MID), 44 adult patients, ASA grade Ⅰ to Ⅱ, scheduled for elective upper abdominal surgery. were randomly allocated to receiving epidural MID 0.05 mg/kg (group E_1) or 0.1 mg/kg (group E_2). or intravenous MID 0.05 mg/kg (group V_1) or 0.1 mg/kg (group V_2), respectively, The analegic effect was evaluated by pin-prink test, following MID administration. The hemodynamie and ventilatory values were measured by impedance cardiogra phy and side stream spirometry, before and 1.3, 5, 10, 15 and 20 mins after MID administration. Tbe results showed that the segmental spinal analgesia occured with MID in group E_1 and E_2, but no analgesia was produced with WID in group V_1 and V_2. Following MID administration in four groups, HR increased during first 5 mins (P0.05); CI, SI. LVWI, MAP, RPP and indices of myocardial eonstraction, cardiae peak flow and blood ejection velocity decreased slightly(P0.05). After MID administration, SpO_2 and VT were reduced (P0.05), and the inspiratory end-tidal oxygen content difference was elevated transiently (P0.05) and went down in group E_2 and V2(P0.05).

Objective: To compare the clinical effects of postoperative patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with different combinations of tramadol and/or buprenorphine. Method:The 150 cases of surgical patients were ran domly divided into 6 groups: 0.6% tramadol (group T_1). mixture of 0.6% tramadol and 0.15% bupivacaine (group T_2), mixture of 0.0015% buprenorphine and bupivacaine (group B_1) , mixture of 0. 0015% buprenorphine, bupivacaine and 0.6% tramadol(group B_2). 0.15% bupivacaine(group C_1), 0.0015% buprenorphine(group C_2). With a Graseby- 9300 PCA pump in the loading-continuous-PCA model, the doses were 5mL-0.5ml-1ml respectively. Result: (1)In the first postoperative 24 hours the amount of drugs used in each group was similar; (2)1n these six groups, both visual analog scale scores and the ratios of tatol deliveries to demands were B_2

Objective:To evaluate the safety of patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA)for elderly patient. Method: Forty two adult patients after operation were divided into control group(44.4?7.8a)and old group(70.9?5.la) according to their ages. All patients reeeived epidural 0.125% bupivacaine and 0.01% morphine mixture for PCEA. BP,HR, RR and SpO_2 were monitored for the first 24 hours following PCEA. Result: The dosage of the mixture was 33.3?6.8ml in control group and 31.6?8.7ml in old group. BP,HR didn't alter markedly in both groups throughout the whole period. RR and SpO_2 remined normal levels. Conclusion: With adequate dosage PCEA can be used safely for elderly postoperative analgesia

1) in group R was shortest among the four groups Conclusions Combination of clonidine with local anesthetics in subarachnoid block is effetive and safe, 50?g clonidine can improve the effects of ropivacaine without significant change in hemodynamics

0.05 as compared with T3 ) . (3) 3 min after propofol injection OAA/S score dropped to 0 in all patients; AEP index and BIS decreased to 28.97?11 and 50? 11 respectively.Conclusions Induction of anesthesia with intravenous midazolam-fentanyl-propofol is smooth and effective with little circulatory disturbance.

Objective To assess the analgesic effect of continuous infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine with epidural catheter placed at T11-12 or L2-3 after abdominal hysterectomy. Methods Eighty ASA Ⅰ -Ⅱ patients undergoing elective abdominal hysterectomy were randomly divided into 4 groups with 20 patients in each group : in group Al and A2 the epidural catheter was placed at T11-12 and in group Bl and B2 at L2-3 . After surgery two infusion pumps were used. The first pump was used for continuous epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine in the 4 groups. The second pump was used for patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) with 0.08% lornoxicam in group Al and Bl or with 0.1% morphine in group A2 and B2. The PCIA bolus dose was 1 ml with a lockout time of 5 min. The analgesic effect (assessed using VAS) and the consumption of lomoxicam / morphine were compared among the four groups. Results The ropivacaine consumption was 192 mg during the 24 h after operation in the 4 groups. The lornoxicam and morphine consumption were (3.9?2.8) mg and (4.6?3.5) mg in group Al and A2 with the epidural catheter placed at T11-12 and (7.7?2.5) mg and (7.8?2.4) mg in group B2 and B2 with catheter placed at L2-3.The consumption of lomoxicam or morphine was significantly less with epidural catheter placed at T11-12 than that with epidural catheter at L2-3 (P

Objective To investigate the analgesic efficacy and safety of continuous epidural infusion of 0.2% levobupivacaine in patients after lower abdominal surgery.Methods Sixty ASA Ⅰ - Ⅱ patients undergoing lower abdominal gynecologic operation under epidural anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups : group L levobupivacaine (n = 30) and group R ropivacaine ( n = 30) . An epidural catheter was placed at L2-3 . After operation the catheter was connected through a 3-way Stopcock to a Graseby 9 500 infusion pump for continuous infusion of 0.2% levobupivacaine or 0.2% ropivacaine at a rate of 4 ml?h-1 and a Graseby 3300 infusion pump for PCEA with 0.01% morphine (bolus dose = 2ml, lockout interval = 10 min, total dose limit = 16 ml?4 h-1) (1) VAS score (0 = no pain, 100 = severe pain). (2) the ratio of the number of attempts calculated (D1) to the number of successfully delivered doses (D2) (D1/D2), (3) modified Bromage Motor scale score, (4) Bruggmann comfort scale (BCS), (5) Ramsay sedation score and (6) the severity of side effects were recorded 0, 2,4, 8, 12, 20 and 24h after operation.Results The demographic data (age, body weight, height) and duration of operation were comparable between the two groups. The analgesia was satisfactory in both groups. VAS scores were significantly lower in levobupivacaine group than that in ropivacaine group at 8 and 24 h after operation ( P

Objective To measure the EC50 of propofol administered by target-controll infusion(TCI) and BIS50 and AAI50 for different levels of sedation during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA). EC50 , BIS50 and AAI50 were defined as the effective target effect-site concentration of propofol and BIS and AAI values at which different levels of sedation were achieved in 50% of patients.Methods Forty-five ASA Ⅰ patients (37 males, 8 females) aged 16-60 yr weighing 35-86 kg undergoing lower abdominal or lower limb surgery under CSEA were studied. CSEA was performed at L2-3 or L3-4 interspace. 0.75% bupivacaine 2 ml (15 mg) was injected into CSF. Intermittent boluses of 2% lidocaine were given through the epidural catheter during operation when needed. The average level of spinal block was T8 (T6-10 ) . The patients were sedated with propofol given by TCI. The level of sedation was assessed using observer assessment of the alertness/sedation scale (OAA/S) . BIS, AAI, MAP, ECG, HR, RR and SpO2 were monitored during anesthesia. Binary logistic regression was used to estimate the population values for EC50 BIS50 and AAI50 at different OAA/S scores. Results The EC50 of propofol from the score of 4-1 on the OAA/S scale were 0.6, 1.0, 1.3 and 1.6 ?g?mi-1 ; the BIS50 values 85, 75, 67 and 61 and AAI50 values 72, 59, 39 and 30 respectively. Conclusion EC50 of propofol given by TCI, BIS50 and AAI50 for different levels of sedation were measured during operation under CSEA and are useful for maintaining conscious sedation during CSEA.