Tooth extraction under general anesthesia in mentally retarded and homecare patients: A retrospective study included different anesthesia techniques

Year 2015, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 1 - 5, 01.04.2015

Serkan Tulgar İbrahim Boğa Tuba Can Elif Bombacı İbrahim Gezgel

Abstract

Aim: General anesthesia is often required for tooth extration in patients with mental retardation or homecare. In this study we aimed to study the requirement for use of neuromuscular muscle relaxants in this patient group Method: This was a retrospective medical file review of mentally retarded or homecare patients undergoing tooth extration under general anesthesia from May 2013 until June 2014. Patients were divided into two groups. Group A: propofol 3mg/kg for induction followed by fentanyl 1mcg/kg and rocuronium 0.6mg/kg and Group B: propofol 3mg/kg for induction followed by alfentanyl 10mcg/kg, lidocaine 1mg/kg and high MAC minimum alveolar concentration sevoflurane for a short period before intubation. Hemodynamic response and time under anesthesia were compared between these two groups. Results: A total of 24 patients 9 female, 15 male were included in this study. There were 13 patients in group A and 11 in group B. There was no difference in pre-intubation systolic, diastolic or mean arterial blood pressure or pulse and Rate Pressure Product. While there was no significant change in these parameters in group B after intubation, there was a significant increase observed in group A. Time under anesthesia, waiting time for awakeness after finishing surgery, postanesthesia recovery time, was significantly higher in group A when compared to group B. Conclusion: In homecare patients and those with mental retardation, the use of midazolam, alfentany, propofol and lidocaine followed by maintanence with volatile agents leads to shorter time under anesthesia, less hemodynamic response and faster postanesthesia recovery; and can safely be used in this patient group without the need for muscle relaxants.

Keywords

mental retardation, dental anaesthesia, muscle relaxant, non-depolarizing

Mental retarde ve bakım hastalarında genel anestezi altında diş çekimi: Farklı anestezi uygulamalarımızı içeren retrospektif bir çalışma

Abstract

Amaç : Mental retarde ve bakım hastalarında diş çekimleri için sıklıkla genel anesteziye ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Bu hasta grubunda nöromusküler kas gevşetici kullanılan ve kullanılmayan iki farklı genel anestezi tercihini karşılaştırmayı planladık Metod: Mayıs 2013- Haziran 2014 tarihleri arası genel anestezi altında diş çekimi uygulanan mental retarde ve bakım hastalarının dosyaları retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Hastalar iki gruba ayrıldı. Grup A: İndüksiyonda propofol: 3 mg/kg, fentanil: 1 mcg/kg, rocuronyum: 0,6 mg/kg, Grup B: İndüksiyonda propofol: 3 mg/kg, alfentanil: 10 mcg/kg, lidokain: 1 mg/kg, entübasyon öncesi kısa süre yüksek MAC Minimal alveolar konsantrasyon sevofluran şeklinde idi. İki grup entübasyona hemodinamik yanıt ve anestezi süreleri açısından değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Çalışmamıza 9'u kadın, 15'i erkek olmak üzere toplam 24 olgu dâhil edilmiştir. Olguların 13'üne A grubu anestezi, 11'ine B grubu anestezi uygulanmıştır. Gruplar arası entübasyon öncesi sistolik, diastolik, ortalama arter basınçları, nabız ve Hız basınç ürünü açısından anlamlı farklılık bulunmazken, B grubunda belirtilen parametrelerde entübasyon sonrası anlamlı değişim görülmezken, A grubunda anlamlı yükselme tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca grubunda anestezi süresi, cerrahi bitimi sonrası uyanma için bekleme süresi, derlenme süresi ortalamaları B Grubundan anlamlı şekilde yüksek bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Mental retarde ve bakım hastalarında kas gevşetici kullanılmadan midazolam, alfentanil, propofol ve lidokain kullanarak entübasyonu takiben volatil ajanla idamenin sağlanacağı genel anestezinin kısa anestezi süresi, entübasyona hemodinamik yanıtta azalma ve hızlı derlenme sağlayarak uygun bir anestezi tercihi olabileceğini düşünmekteyiz

Keywords

mental retardasyon, dental anestezi, kas gevşetici, non-depolarizan

References

• Rooke GA, Chi J-H, Bishop MJ. The effect of Escribano Hernández A, Hernández Corral T, Ruiz-Martín E, Porteros Sánchez JA. Results of a dental care protocol for mentally hand- icapped patients set in a primary health care area in Spain. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2007;12(7):E492-495.
• Nunn JH, Davidson G, Gordon PH, Storrs J. A retrospective review of a service to provide comprehensive dental care under general an- esthesia. Spec Care Dentist 1995;15(3):97-101.
• White PF, Tang J, Wender RH et al. Desflurane versus sevoflurane for maintenance of outpa- tient anesthesia: the effect on early versus late recovery and perioperative coughing. Anesth Analg 2009;109(2):387-393.
• Kaplan JD, Schuster DP. Physigolic consequenc- es of tracheal intubation. Clinics in Chest Med- icine 1991; 3:425-432.
• Kindler CH, Schumacher PG, Schneider MC, Urwyler A. Effects of intravenous lidocaine and/or esmolol on hemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and intubation: a double-blind, controlled clinical trial. J Clin Anesth 1996; 8(6):491-496.
• Ugur B, Ogurlu M, Gezer E, Nuri Aydin O, Gür- soy F. Effects of esmolol, lidocaine and fentanyl on haemodynamic responses to endotracheal intubation: a comparative study. Clin Drug Investig 2007;27(4):269-277.
• Levitt MA, Dresden GM. The efficacy of esm- olol versus lidocaine to attenuate the hemo- dynamic response to intubation in isolated head trauma patients. Acad Emerg Med 2001; 8(1):19-24.
• Conghlan SFE, Mc Donald PF, Csepregi G. Use of Alfentanyl with propofol for nasotracheal intubation without nevramuscular block. Br J Anaesth 1993; 7089.
• Hamaya Y, Dohi S, Differences in cardiovascular response to Airway stimulation at different site and blockade of the responses by lidocaine. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 95-103.
• Lev R, Rosen P. Prophytactic lidocaine use preintubation: a review. J Emerg Med 1994;12:499-506.
• Davidson JAH, Gillespie JA. Tracheal intubation after induction of anaesthesia with propo- fol, alfentanyl and iv lignocaine. Br J Anaesth 1993; 70:163.
• Stevens JB, Wheatley LD. Tracheal ıntubation in Ambulatary Surgery Patients: Using Remifen- tanyl and Propofol without muscle relaksants. Anesth Analg 1998;86:45-49.
• Klemda UM, Mennander S, Sarnivaara L. Tracheal intubation without the use of muscle relaksants. remifentanyl or alfentanyl in combi- nation with propofol. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2000; 44: 465-469
• Rajan S, Gotluru P, Andews S, Paul J. Evalu- ation of endotracheal intubating conditions without the use of muscle relaxants follow- ing induction with propofol and sevoflurane in pediatric cleft lip and palate surgeries. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2014; 30(3):360- 365.
• Pang L, Zhuang YY, Dong S, Ma HC, Ma HS, Wang YF. Intubation without muscle relax- ation for suspension laryngoscopy: a rand- omized, controlled study. Niger J Clin Pract 2014;17(4):456-461.
• Ledowski T, Ong JS, Flett T. Neuromuscular monitoring, muscle relaxant use, and reversal at a tertiary teaching hospital 2.5 years after introduction of sugammadex: changes in opin- ions and clinical practice. Anesthesiol Res Pract 2015;367937.