Background: The laryngeal mask airway ProSeal (PLMA), a new laryngeal mask device, was compared with the laryngeal mask airway Classic (LMA) with respect to: (1) insertion success rates and times; (2) efficacy of seal; (3) fiberoptically determined anatomic position; (4) orogastric tube insertion success rates and times; (5) total intraoperative complications; and (6) postoperative sore throat in nonparalyzed adult patients undergoing general anesthesia, hypothesizing that these would be different. Methods: Three hundred eighty-four nonparalyzed anesthetized adult patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II) were randomly allocated to the PLMA or LMA for airway management. In addition, 50% of patients were randomized for orogastric tube placement. Unblinded observers collected intraoperative data, and blinded observers collected postoperative data. Results: First-attempt insertion success rates (91 vs. 82%, P = 0.015) were higher for the LMA, but after three attempts success rates were similar (LMA, 100%; PLMA, 98%). Less time was required to achieve an effective airway with the LMA (31 +/- 30 vs. 41 +/- 49 s; P = 0.02). The PLMA formed a more effective seal (27 +/- 7 vs. 22 +/- 6 cm H2O; P < 0.0001). Fiberoptically determined anatomic position was better with the LMA (P < 0.0001). Orogastric tube insertion was more successful after two attempts (88 vs. 55%; P < 0.0001) and quicker (22 +/- 18 vs. 38 +/- 56 s) with the PLMA. During maintenance, the PLMA failed twice (leak, stridor) and the LMA failed once (laryngospasm). Total intraoperative complications were similar for both groups. The incidence of postoperative sore throat was similar. Conclusion: In anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients, the LMA is easier and quicker to insert, but the PLMA forms a better seal and facilitates easier and quicker orogastric tube placement. The incidence of total intraoperative complications and postoperative sore throat are similar.

Low back pain represents a significant socioeconomic burden. Several nonsurgical medical treatments have been proposed for the treatment of this disabling condition. Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are commonly used to treat lumbosacral radicular pain and to avoid surgery. Even though it is still not clear which type of conservative intervention is superior, several studies have proved that ESIs are able to increase patients’ quality of life, relieve lumbosacral radicular pain and finally, reduce or delay more invasive interventions, such as spinal surgery. The aim of this narrative review is to analyze the mechanism of action of ESIs in patients affected by low back pain and investigate their current application in treating this widespread pathology.

Al. Patients were monitored for 12 h, and the following efficacy variables were assessed; total dose of morphine, pain intensity, and global efficacy. Safety and tolerability were evaluated by the occurrence of adverse events, especially the presence and intensity of gastrointestinal symptoms. Hemostatic variables were measured 30 and 60 min after the first infusion; arterial blood pressure, heart and respiratory rates, sedation scores, and renal and hepatic function were also assessed. Total morphine requirements were not significantly different between the propacetamol (10.6 +/- 4.8 mg) and ketorolac (10.2 +/- 4.4 mg) groups. The evolution of pain intensity and the global efficacy also showed similar patterns in the two groups: 70.2% of patients in the propacetamol group rated the efficacy as "good/excellent" compared with 68.2% in the ketorolac group. There were no clinically significant changes in vital signs or laboratory values and no observed differences between the two groups, although ketorolac slightly, but not significantly, prolonged the bleeding time. Epigastric pain was present in 9% and 15% of patients receiving propacetamol and ketorolac, respectively. There were two adverse events in the propacetamol group and four in the ketorolac group. Propacetamol demonstrates an efficacy similar to that of ketorolac and has an excellent tolerability after gynecologic surgery. Implications: Propacetamol and ketorolac, combined with patient-controlled analgesia morphine, show similar analgesic efficacy after gynecologic surgery. Morphine consumption and pain scores were comparable in the two studied groups. Propacetamol is as effective as ketorolac and has an excellent tolerability after gynecologic surgery. (Anesth Analg 1999;88:611-16)...

Ultrasound guided parasternal block is a regional anaesthesia technique targeting the anterior branches of intercostal nerves, which supply the anterior thoracic wall. The aim of this prospective study is to assess the efficacy of parasternal block to manage postoperative analgesia and reduce opioid consumption in patients undergoing cardiac surgery throughout sternotomy. A total of 126 consecutive patients were allocated to two different groups, receiving (Parasternal group) or not (Control group) preoperative ultrasound guided bilateral parasternal block with 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine per side. The following data were recorded: postoperative pain expressed by a 0–10 numeric rating scale (NRS), intraoperative fentanyl consumption, postoperative morphine consumption, time to extubation and perioperative pulmonary performance at incentive spirometry. Postoperative NRS was not significantly different between Parasternal and Control groups with a median (IQR) of 2 (0–4.5) vs. 3 (0–6) upon awakening (p = 0.07); 0 (0–3) vs. 2 (0–4) at 6 h (p = 0.46); 0 (0–2) vs. 0 (0–2) at 12 h (p = 0.57). Postoperative morphine consumption was similar among groups. However, intraoperative fentanyl consumption was significantly lower in the Parasternal group [406.3 ± 81.6 mcg vs. 864.3 ± 154.4, (p < 0.001)]. Parasternal group showed shorter times to extubation [(191 ± 58 min vs. 305 ± 72 min, (p)] and better performance at incentive spirometer with a median (IQR) of 2 raised balls (1–2) vs. 1 (1–2) after awakening (p = 0.04). Ultrasound guided parasternal block provided an optimal perioperative analgesia with a significant reduction in intraoperative opioid consumption, time to extubation and a better postoperative performance at spirometry when compared to the Control group.