(C) 2008 Elsevier B V All rights reserved “
“The aim of thi

(C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.”
“The aim of this study was to compare spinal, low-dose spinal, and epidural anesthesia using ropivacaine and fentanyl combinations for transurethral surgical procedures. Sixty patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists scores of I-III were allocated into three groups. After pre-loading with 5 mL/kg normal LY2835219 cost saline, patients in the spinal anesthesia group (Group S) received 15 mg of hyperbaric ropivacaine plus 25 mu g of fentanyl

intrathecally; patients in the epidural anesthesia group (Group E) received 112.5 mg of ropivacaine plus 25 mu g of fentanyl epidurally via an epidural catheter; and patients in the low-dose spinal anesthesia group (Group L) received 10 mg of hyperbaric ropivacaine plus 25 mu g of fentanyl intrathecally. Blood pressure, heart rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, time to onset of thoracic (T)-10 dermatome, two-segment sensorial block regression time, full recovery of sensorial block, maximum motor blockade levels, motor blockade regression time, additional analgesic administration, patient comfort, and complications were recorded. The time to the onset of T10 dermatome level was shortest in Group S and longest in Group E (p < 0.001). The sensorial blockade time and motor blockade regression time were shorted in Group L (p < 0.001). The two-segment sensorial

block regression time in Group E exceeded that in the other groups. Additional analgesic administration was not needed in any group. No complications or adverse effects were observed in any patient. SNX-5422 PD98059 MAPK inhibitor We conclude that all three anesthetic techniques may be used safely and are appropriate for transurethral surgical procedures. However, low-dose spinal anesthesia with ropivacaine plus fentanyl may be preferable in transurethral surgery because we reach an adequate sensorial level with less motor blockade.”

Bacterial contamination is considered to be a contraindication for intraoperative blood salvage (IBS) during OLT. The aims of this study were to evaluate the efficiency of the

autotransfusion device with an additional leukocyte depletion filter (LDF) for eliminating bacterial contaminations, and its clinical outcomes in terms of post-operative infections during OLT.


Forty-five patients with end-stage liver disease and cirrhotic ascites were enrolled in this study. The blood from the surgical field was collected and processed by an autotransfusion device (Cell Saver 5) and a LDF for bacteriological analysis. Among them, 12 patients with chronic severe hepatitis B received autologous transfusion for analysis of the effect on post-operative infections.


Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) (p < 0.05, OR = 20.1) and a long duration of operation (p < 0.01, OR = 8.3) were found to be critical risk factors for contamination.

Comments are closed.