Background: Differences in the effects of propofol and dexmedetomidine sedation on electroencephalogram patterns have been reported previously. However, the reliability of the Bispectral Index (BIS) value for assessing the sedation caused by dexmedetomidine remains debatable. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the correlation between the BIS value and the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale in patients sedated with dexmedetomidine. Methods: Forty-two patients (age range, 20–80 years) who were scheduled for elective surgery under spinal anesthesia were enrolled in this study. Spinal anesthesia was performed using 0.5% bupivacaine, which was followed by dexmedetomidine infusion (loading dose, 0.5–1 μg/kg for 10 min; maintenance dose, 0.3–0.6 μg/kg/h). The MOAA/S score was used to evaluate the level of sedation, and the Vital Recorder program was used to collect data (vital signs and BIS values). Results: A total of 215082 MOAA/S scores and BIS data pairs were analyzed. The baseline variability of the BIS value was 7.024%, and the decrease in the BIS value was associated with a decrease in the MOAA/S score. The correlation coefficient and prediction probability between the two measurements were 0.566 (P < 0.0001) and 0.636, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation values of the BIS were 87.22 ± 7.06, 75.85 ± 9.81, and 68.29 ± 12.65 when the MOAA/S scores were 5, 3, and 1, respectively. Furthermore, the cut-off BIS values in the receiver operating characteristic analysis at MOAA/S scores of 5, 3, and 1 were 82, 79, and 73, respectively. Conclusion The BIS values were significantly correlated with the MOAA/S scores. Thus, the BIS along with the clinical sedation scale might prove useful in assessing the hypnotic depth of a patient during sedation with dexmedetomidine.

PURPOSE: This study examined the factors affecting the treatment of diabetes mellitus foot patients who had undergone a Syme amputation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 17 patients diagnosed with a diabetes mellitus foot and who had undergone a Syme amputation from January 2010 to January 2014. Some of the risk factors (age, body mass index [BMI], disease duration, smoking, ankle brachial index [ABI], HbA1c, serum albumin, total lymphocyte, C-reactive protein [CRP], and serum creatine) that affect the successful Syme amputation were analyzed. RESULTS: The healing rate of a Syme amputation was significantly higher when the lymphocyte count was above 1,500 mm3 (p=0.029). The factors affecting the surgical outcome according to multivariate analysis were HbA1c and the BMI (p=0.014, p=0.013). Regarding reamputation, there was a significant difference with HbA1c, lymphocyte, and BMI (p=0.01, p=0.03, and p=0.01). No significant differences were observed with age, disease duration of diabetes mellitus, smoking, ABI, serum albumin, CRP, and serum creatine. CONCLUSION: The HbA1c level, BMI and total lymphocyte count are risk factors that must be considered for successful Syme amputation in patients with diabetic foot disease.
Amputation* ; Ankle Brachial Index ; Body Mass Index ; C-Reactive Protein ; Creatine ; Diabetes Mellitus ; Diabetic Foot* ; Foot ; Humans ; Lymphocyte Count ; Lymphocytes ; Multivariate Analysis ; Risk Factors* ; Serum Albumin ; Smoke ; Smoking

Background: The depth of anesthesia is an essential factor in surgical prognosis. The neurotoxic effect of chemotherapeutic drugs affects the sensitivity to anesthetics. This study was conducted to determine whether the effect-site concentration (Ce) of propofol for loss of consciousness (LOC) differs in patients undergoing preoperative chemotherapy. Methods: A total of 60 patients scheduled for surgery for colorectal cancer under general anesthesia were included in this study. Patients who had received chemotherapy comprised the experimental (C) group, and those without a previous history of chemotherapy comprised the control (N) group. Propofol was administered as an effect-site target-controlled infusion, and the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scores were evaluated. When the plasma concentration and Ce were similar, and if the MOAA/S score did not change, the target Ce was increased by 0.2 μg/ml; otherwise, the Ce was maintained for 2 min and then increased. Results: The Ce values of propofol for loss of verbal contact (LVC) in groups C and N were 2.40 ± 0.39 and 2.29 ± 0.39 μg/ml (P = 0.286), respectively, and those for LOC in groups C and N were 2.69 ± 0.43 and 2.50 ± 0.36 μg/ml (P = 0.069), respectively. No significant difference was observed in Ce values between the two groups. Conclusions Chemotherapy had no effect on the Ce of propofol for LVC and LOC in patients with colorectal cancer. We do not recommend reducing the dose of propofol for the induction of LOC in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

Some studies have demonstrated that chemotherapy drugs enhance sensitivity to anesthetics owing to its systemic toxicity, while others have demonstrated that chemotherapy drugs have no effect. This study aimed to determine whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy influences the effect-site concentration (Ce) of propofol for sedation in patients withbreast cancer.Methods: This study included patients aged 19–75 years who were scheduled to undergobreast cancer surgery under general anesthesia. Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were assigned to group C, whereas those who never received chemotherapy wereassigned to group N. Propofol was administered through an effect-site target-controlled infusion, and the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale (MOAA/S) scoreand Bispectral Index (BIS) were recorded. When the plasma concentration and Ce wereequal to the target Ce, and if the MOAA/S score did not change, the target Ce was increasedby 0.2 μg/ml; otherwise, the Ce was maintained for 2 min and then increased. This processwas repeated until the MOAA/S score became 0.Results: No significant differences were observed in Ce values at each sedation level between both groups. Ce values for loss of consciousness (LOC) of groups C and N were 2.76± 0.29 and 2.67 ± 0.27 μg/ml (P = 0.285), respectively. However, the BIS value at LOC ofgroup C (63.87 ± 7.04) was lower than that (68.44 ± 6.01) of group N (P = 0.018).Conclusions: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer has no effect on the Ce ofpropofol for sedation.

Background: Difficult airway occurs due to anatomical abnormalities of the airway that can be predicted through airway assessments; however, abnormalities beyond the vocal cord can be clinically asymptomatic and undetected until intubation failure to advance the endotracheal tube.Case: We present a case of an unanticipated difficult airway in a stuporous 80-year-old female with a recent history of intracerebral hemorrhage and prolonged intubation. She required emergency ventriculo-peritoneal shunt surgery due to the progression of her hydrocephalus. Under anesthesia, facemask ventilation was easy and video laryngoscopy provided a full view of the glottis; however, endotracheal tube (ETT) entry failed. We suspected stenosis beyond the vocal cord, and a smaller diameter ETT was inserted and maintained for airway management during emergency surgery. Postoperative neck computed tomography findings revealed laryngotracheal stenosis (LTS). Conclusions Anesthesiologists should be aware that LTS may be asymptomatic and consider difficult airway guidelines in patients with history of prolonged endotracheal intubation.

Internal jugular veins are the most frequently accessed site for central venous catheterization in patient management, whereas complications involving vertebral veins are a rare occurrence. Case: A 73-year-old male suspected to have a urothelial carcinoma was scheduled for elective left nephroureterectomy. During central venous catheterization using the anatomic landmark technique to target the internal jugular vein, a guidewire is inadvertently inserted into the suspected vertebral vein. Following the correction of the catheterization, a radiologist reviewed the preoperative enhanced computed tomography and confirmed that the initially punctured vessel was the vertebral vein. On the third day after surgery, the central venous catheter was removed, and the patient did not exhibit any complications, such as bleeding, swelling, and neurological symptoms. Conclusions: The use of ultrasonography during central venous catheterization is recommended to evaluate the anatomy of the puncture site and prevent misinsertion of the catheter, which can lead to several complications.

Background: Postoperative sore throat (POST) is a complication that decreases patient satisfaction and increases postoperative complaints. The present study was conducted to investigate effects of gargling with dexamethasone, intravenous dexamethasone injection and the combination of the two on the incidence and severity of POST. Methods: Study participants were 96 patients who had undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy, randomly allocated into three groups. Group G gargled with 0.05% dexamethasone solution and were infused intravenous 0.9% normal saline before general anesthesia; group I gargled with 0.9% normal saline and were infused intravenous 0.1 mg/kg dexamethasone; group GI gargled with 0.05% dexamethasone solution and were infused intravenous 0.1 mg/kg dexamethasone. The incidence and severity of POST, hoarseness and cough were evaluated and recorded at 1, 6, and 24 h after the surgery. Results: There were no significant differences in the total incidence of POST up to 24 postoperative hours among Group G, Group I and Group GI (P = 0.367, Group G incidence = 34.38%, [95% confidence interval, 95% CI = 17.92–50.83], Group I incidence = 18.75%, [95% CI = 5.23–32.27], Group GI incidence = 28.13%, [95% CI = 12.55–43.70]). The other outcomes were comparable among the groups. Conclusions In patients who had undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy, gargling with 0.05% dexamethasone solution demonstrated the same POST prevention effect as intravenous injection of 0.1 mg/kg dexamethasone. The incidence and severity of POST were not significantly different between the combination of gargling with 0.05% dexamethasone solution and intravenous injection of 0.1 mg/kg dexamethasone and use of each of the preventive methods alone.