• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.54-62
• /
• 2014

Background: The recently known analgesic action mechanisms of nefopam (NFP) are similar to those of anticonvulsants and antidepressants in neuropathic pain treatment. It is difficult to prescribe high doses of oral neuropathic drugs without titration due to adverse effects. Unfortunately, there are few available intravenous analgesics for the immediate management of acute flare-ups of the chronic neuropathic pain. The aim of this study was to determine the additional analgesic effects for neuropathic pain of NFP and its adverse effects during the titration of oral medications for neuropathic pain among inpatients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Methods: Eighty inpatients with PHN were randomly divided into either the NFP or normal saline (NS) groups. Each patient received a 3-day intravenous continuous infusion of either NFP with a consecutive dose reduction of 60, 40, and 20 mg/d, or NS simultaneously while dose titrations of oral medications for neuropathic pain gradually increased every 3 days. The efficacy of additional NFP was evaluated by using the neuropathic pain symptom inventory (NPSI) score for 12 days. Adverse effects were also recorded. Results: The median NPSI score was significantly lower in the NFP group from days 1 to 6 of hospitalization. The representative alleviating symptoms of pain after using NFP were both spontaneous and evoked neuropathic pain. Reported common adverse effects were nausea, dizziness, and somnolence, in order of frequency. Conclusions: An intravenous continuous infusion of NFP reduces spontaneous and evoked neuropathic pain with tolerable adverse effects during the titration of oral medications in inpatients with PHN.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.39 no.5
• /
• pp.540-545
• /
• 2012

Background Patients have anxiety and fear of complications due to general anesthesia. Through new instruments and local anesthetic drugs, a variety of anesthetic methods have been introduced. These methods keep hospital costs down and save time for patients. In particular, the target-controlled infusion (TCI) system maintains a relatively accurate level of plasma concentration, so the depth of anesthesia can be adjusted more easily. We conducted this study to examine whether intravenous anesthesia using the TCI system with propofol and remifentanil would be an effective method of anesthesia in breast augmentation. Methods This study recruited 100 patients who underwent breast augmentation surgery from February to August 2011. Intravenous anesthesia was performed with 10 mg/mL propofol and 50 ${\mu}g/mL$ remifentanil simultaneously administered using two separate modules of a continuous computer-assisted TCI system. The average target concentration was set at 2 ${\mu}g/mL$ and 2 ng/mL for propofol and remifentanil, respectively, and titrated against clinical effect and vital signs. Oxygen saturation, electrocardiography, and respiratory status were continuously measured during surgery. Blood pressure was measured at 5-minute intervals. Information collected includes total duration of surgery, dose of drugs administered during surgery, memory about surgery, and side effects. Results Intraoperatively, there was transient hypotension in two cases and hypoxia in three cases. However, there were no serious complications due to anesthesia such as respiratory difficulty, deep vein thrombosis, or malignant hypertension, for which an endotracheal intubation or reversal agent would have been needed. All the patients were discharged on the day of surgery and able to ambulate normally. Conclusions Our results indicate that anesthetic methods, where the TCI of propofol and remifentanil is used, might replace general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation in breast augmentation surgery.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.55 no.1
• /
• pp.30-36
• /
• 2022

Background: No consensus exists regarding whether volatile anesthetics are superior to intravenous anesthetics for reducing postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in patients undergoing general anesthesia for surgery. Studies of this issue focused on anatomic pulmonary resection are lacking. This study compared the effects of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) versus volatile anesthesia on PPCs after anatomic pulmonary resection in patients with lung cancer. Methods: This retrospective study examined the medical records of patients with lung cancer who underwent lung resection at our center between January 2018 and October 2020. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPCs, which included prolonged air leak, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, empyema, atelectasis requiring bronchofiberscopy (BFS), acute lung injury (ALI), bronchopleural fistula (BPF), pulmonary embolism, and pulmonary edema. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the 2 groups. In total, 579 anatomic pulmonary resection cases were included in the final analysis. Results: The analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the volatile anesthesia and TIVA groups in terms of PPCs, except for prolonged air leak. Neither of the groups showed atelectasis requiring BFS, ALI, BPF, pulmonary embolism, or pulmonary edema after PSM. However, the length of hospitalization, intensive care unit stay, and duration of chest tube indwelling were shorter in the TIVA group. Conclusion: Volatile anesthetics showed no superiority compared to TIVA in terms of PPCs after anatomical pulmonary resection in patients with lung cancer. Considering the advantages of each anesthetic modality, appropriate anesthetic modalities should be used in patients with different risk factors and situations.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.101-103
• /
• 2020

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Veterinary Clinics Conference
• /
• 2006.05a
• /
• pp.144-144
• /
• 2006

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.195-196
• /
• 2018

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.84-89
• /
• 2016

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of intravenous ondansetron (4 mg, 2 mL) and granisetron (2 mg, 2 mL) for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients during oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia. Materials and Methods: A prospective, randomized, and double blind clinical study was carried out with 60 patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia. Patients were divided into two groups of 30 individuals each. Approximately two minutes before induction of general anesthesia, each patient received either 4 mg (2 mL) ondansetron or 2 mg (2 mL) granisetron intravenously in a double blind manner. Balanced anesthetic technique was used for all patients. Patients were assessed for episodes of nausea, retching, vomiting, and the need for rescue antiemetic at intervals of 0-2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery. Incidence of complete response and adverse effects were assessed at 24 hours postoperatively. Data was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis using the chi-square test, unpaired t-test, or the Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for incidence of PONV or the need for rescue antiemetic. Both study drugs were well tolerated with minimum adverse effects; the most common adverse effect was headache. The overall incidence of complete response in the granisetron group (86.7%) was significantly higher than the ondansetron group (60.0%). Conclusion: Granisetron at an intravenous dose of 2 mg was found to be safe, well tolerated, and more effective by increasing the incidence of complete response compared to 4 mg intravenous ondansetron when used for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia. Benefits of granisetron include high receptor specificity and high potency, which make it a valuable alternative to ondansetron.

• Journal of The Korean Dental Society of Anesthesiology
• /
• v.1 no.1 s.1
• /
• pp.5-9
• /
• 2001

Day stay anesthesia should include: rapid smooth onset; rapid recovery without residual side effects; absence of adverse effects (N/V); and providing postoperative analgesia. General anesthesia with multi-modalities (inhalation, intravenous and local anesthesia) may be preferable in day stay surgery. Future studies on new drugs and techniques for day stay anesthesia need comparing the increased coat of newer treatments with the potential financial savings resulting from earlier hospital discharge, reduced supplemental drugs, and earlier return to work.

• Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing
• /
• v.37 no.7
• /
• pp.1061-1072
• /
• 2007

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of intravenous fluid warming and skin surface warming on peri-operative body temperature and acid base balance of abdominal surgical patients under general anesthesia. Method: Data collection was performed from January 4th, to May 31, 2004. The intravenous fluid warming(IFW) group(30 elderly patients) was warmed through an IV line by an Animec set to $37^{\circ}C$. The skin surface warming(SSW) group(30 elderly patients) was warmed by a circulating-water blanket set to $38^{\circ}C$ under the back and a 60W heating lamp 40 cm above the chest. The warming continued from induction of general anesthesia to two hours after completion of surgery. Collected data was analyzed using Repeated Measures ANOVA, and Bonferroni methods. Results: SSW was more effective than IFW in preventing hypothermia(p= .043), preventing a decrease of $HCO_3{^-}$(p= .000) and preventing base excess(p= .000) respectively. However, there was no difference in pH between the SSW and IFW(p= .401) groups. Conclusion: We conclude that skin surface warming is more effective in preventing hypothermia, and $HCO_3{^-}$ and base excess during general anesthesia, and returning to normal body temperature after surgery than intravenous fluid warming; however, skin surface warming wasn't able to sustain a normal body temperature in elderly patients undergoing abdominal surgery under general anesthesia.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.191-198
• /
• 2018

Background: Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is known to provide good postoperative analgesia in many types of surgery including laparoscopic surgery. However, no study has compared PCEA with patient-controlled intravascular analgesia (PCIA) in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LARP). In this study, the efficacy and side effects of PCEA and PCIA after LARP were compared. Methods: Forty patients undergoing LARP were randomly divided into two groups: 1) a PCEA group, treated with 0.2% ropivacaine 3 ml and 0.1 mg morphine in the bolus; and 2) a PCIA group, treated with oxycodone 1 mg and nefopam 1 mg in the bolus. After the operation, a blinded observer assessed estimated blood loss (EBL), added a dose of rocuronium, performed transfusion, and added analgesics. The numeric rating scale (NRS), infused PCA dose, and side effects were assessed at 1, 6, 24, and 48 h. Results: EBL, added rocuronium, and added analgesics in the PCEA group were less than those in the PCIA group. There were no significant differences in side-effects after the operation between the two groups. Patients were more satisfied with PCEA than with PCIA. The NRS and accumulated PCA count were lower in PCEA group. Conclusions: Combined thoracic epidural anesthesia could induce less blood loss during operations. PCEA showed better postoperative analgesia and greater patient satisfaction than PCIA. Thus, PCEA may be a more useful analgesic method than PICA after LARP.