Background: Dexmedetomidine and ketamine popular sedative agents that result in minimal respiratory depression and the presence of analgesic activity. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of a dexmedetomidine-propofol combination and a ketamine-propofol combination during upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy.Methods: The study commenced after receiving approval from the local ethics committee. Patients between 18 and 60 years in the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II groups were included. Patients who had severe organ disease, who had allergies to the study drugs, and who refused to participate were excluded. Cases were randomized into a dexmedetomidine-propofol group (Group D, n = 30) and a ketamine-propofol group (Group K, n = 30). Cardiac monitoring, peripheral oxygen saturation, and bispectral index (BIS) monitoring were performed. Group D received 1 mg/kg dexmedetomidine + 0.5 mg/kg propofol intravenous (IV) bolus, 0.5 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine + 0.5 mg/kg/h propfol infusion. Group K received 1 mg/kg ketamine + 0.125 mL/kg propofol iv bolus, 0.25 mg/kg/h ketamine + 0.125 mL/kg/h propfol infusion. Patients were followed up with a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) of ≥4. Means, standard deviations, lowest and highest frequency values, and ratio values were used for descriptive statistics, and the SPSS 22.0 program was used for statistical analyses.Results: In Group K, recovery time and mean blood pressure (MBP) values were significantly shorter. Furthermore, coughing rate, pulse, and BIS values were higher than in Group D (P < .05). Although there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of endoscopic tolerance and endoscopist satisfaction, we observed that the dexmedetomidine group experienced more comfortable levels of sedation.Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol combinations may be suitable and safe for endoscopy sedation due to their different properties. It was observed that the dexmedetomidine-propfol combination was superior in terms of sedation depth and that the ketamine-propofol combination was superior in terms of early recovery. As a result, we suggest the dexmedetomidine-propofol combination for upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy sedation due to hemodynamic stability and minimal adverse effects.

Patient safety is important in daily anesthesia practices, and providing deep anesthesia is difficult. Current debates on the optimal anesthetic agents highlight the need for safer alternatives. This study was justified by the need for safer and more effective anesthetic protocols for outpatient hysteroscopic procedures, particularly those conducted outside the operating room. Propofol, while widely used, has significant limitations, including respiratory depression, hemodynamic instability, and delayed recovery when higher doses are required for adequate sedation. The addition of opioids to propofol, though beneficial for analgesia, introduces risks such as hypoxemia and hypotension. These challenges necessitate exploring alternative combinations that balance sedation depth with fewer side effects. To assess the efficacy and safety of deep sedoanalgesia achieved with dexmedetomidine-propofol versus remifentanil-propofol combinations in daily anesthesia practices. Prospective randomized clinical study. This study was carried out at Dursun Odabaş Medical Center. Eighty ASA I–II patients, aged 18–65, scheduled for elective hysteroscopic interventions under sedoanalgesia were included in the study. The primary aim of our study was to identify an anesthetic agent combination capable of delivering effective and safe deep sedation, with sedation depth assessed via the Ramsey Sedation Score (RSS) and respiratory safety evaluated through desaturation rates. Secondary endpoints included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores, oxygen saturation (SpO2), patient, surgeon, and anesthesiologist satisfaction scores, hemodynamic parameters, the time to achieve an RSS > 4, the time to reach a Modified Aldrete Score (MAS) > 9, and the requirement for mask ventilation and jaw thrust maneuvers. Patients were randomized into two groups (n = 40 each): Patients in the DP group exhibited significantly lower VAS scores and desaturation rates (p = 0.003) compared to the RP group. Satisfaction scores (patient, surgeon, anesthesiologist) and integrated pulmonary index (IPI) values were significantly higher in the DP group (p < 0.05). The dexmedetomidine-propofol combination is an effective and safe anesthetic regimen for deep sedation in outpatient hysteroscopic procedures, offering adequate sedation and superior preservation of respiratory function. Additionally, the dexmedetomidine-propofol combination ensures more stable hemodynamics, with a lower incidence of hypoxia, and results in higher satisfaction rates among patients, surgeons, and anesthesiologists. Clinical Trials ID is NCT05674201 Date 2022.12.07. Dexmedetomidine combined with propofol provides adequate depth of anesthesia and analgesia for hysteroscopic procedures. The combination of dexmedetomidine and propofol affects respiratory function less, and hypoxemia is less common in patients. When nonoperating rooms administer dexmedetomidine, one should be prepared for cardiovascular complications, especially bradycardia.

To compare patients that received intravenous (i.v.) analgesics with those that received transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block for pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This retrospective study enrolled patients that had undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy and divided them into two groups: the i.v. analgesic group (controls; group A) and the TAP block group (group T). Data retrieved from the medical records included postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, total hospital stay, additional analgesic requirements and the occurrence of nausea and vomiting. A total of 515 patients were included (group A, n = 247; group T, n = 268). Postoperative VAS pain scores at 0, 2, 4 and 6 h and the need for additional analgesics were significantly lower in group T than in group A. Postoperative VAS pain scores at 12 and 24 h were significantly higher in group T than in group A. Postoperative nausea and vomiting were significantly lower in group T than in group A. The rate of ICU admission in group T was significantly lower than in group A. Effective postoperative analgesia can be achieved with TAP block and undesirable effects can be reduced.

Background: We aimed to evaluate the intraoperative hemodynamics, opioid consumption, muscle relaxant use, postoperative analgesic effects, and possible adverse effects (such as nausea and vomiting) of dexmedetomidine and tramadol added as adjuvants to bupivacaine in the transversus abdominis plane block (TAP block) to provide postoperative analgesia. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial on patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. After obtaining ethical approval at the Van Yuzuncu Yil University and written informed consent, this investigation was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05905757). The study was conducted with 67 patients with ASA I–II physical status, aged 20–60 years, of either sex who were scheduled for an elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia. Exclusion criteria were the patient’s refusal, ASA III and above, a history of allergy to the study drugs, patients with severe systemic diseases, pregnancy, psychiatric illness, seizure disorder, and those who had taken any form of analgesics in the last 24 h. The patients were equally randomized into one of two groups: Group T (TAP Block group) and Group D (Dexmedetomidin group). Standard general anesthesia was administered. After intubation, Group T (Bupivacaine + adjuvant tramadol) = solutions containing 0.250% bupivacaine 15 mL + adjuvant 1.5 mg/kg (100 mg maximum) tramadol 25 mL and Group D (Bupivacaine + adjuvant dexmedetomidine) = solutions containing 0.250% bupivacaine 15 mL + 0.5 mcg/kg and (50 mcg maximum) dexmedetomidine 25 mL; in total, 40 mL and 20 mL was applied to groups T and D, respectively. A bilateral subcostal TAP block was performed by the same anesthesiologist. Intraoperative vital signs, an additional dose of opioid and muscle relaxant requirements, complications, postoperative side effects (nausea, vomiting), postoperative analgesic requirement, mobilization times, and the zero-hour mark (patients with modified Aldrete scores of 9 and above were recorded as 0 h), the third-hour, and sixth-hour visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded. The main outcome measurements were the effect on pain scores and analgesic consumption within the first 6 h postoperatively, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and time to ambulation. The secondary aim was to evaluate intraoperative effects (on hemodynamics and opioid and muscle relaxant consumption). Results: It was observed that dexmedetomidine and tramadol did not have superiority over each other in terms of postoperative analgesia time, analgesic consumption, side effect profile, and mobilization times (p > 0.05). However, more stable hemodynamics were observed with dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant. Conclusions: We think that the use of adjuvant dexmedetomidine in the preoperative TAP block procedure will provide more stable intraoperative hemodynamic results compared with the use of tramadol. We believe that our study will be a guide for new studies conducted with different doses and larger numbers of participants.

Background: The diagnosis of brain death (BD) is mainly a clinical diagnosis. Ancillary tests may be used in confusing situations. Although computed tomography angiography (CTA) has high sensitivity and specificity, it can give false-positive results in cases with craniotomy. Objective: The aim of this study is to emphasize the importance of accurate and detailed clinical diagnosis and to reveal that there is organ loss as a result of prolonged supportive tests, especially in developing countries. Material and Methods This retrospective study included patients who were diagnosed with BD in the intensive care unit of Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, between September 2014 and August 2017 in Turkey. The study included 14 male and 8 female patients. Patients who did not show any spontaneous respiratory symptoms after the apnea test were diagnosed with clinical BD. Patients on neurodepressant medications who were hypothermic or hypoxic or had a severe endocrine or metabolic disorder were excluded from the study. CTA was used as an ancillary test in compliance with legal requirements. Age, sex, hospitalization days, day of clinical diagnosis of BD, first radiologic evaluation by CTA, clinical diagnosis, and radiologic evaluation were recorded for all patients. Results: Radiologic evaluation was not compatible with the clinical evaluation in 5 patients. Although 2 of these 5 patients had BD diagnosis clinically, blood flow could be expected during CTA because of cranial injury. Unlike in the literature, false positivity was found in 3 patients with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy in the present study. Conclusions: Proper management of limited resources and the facilitation of cadaver organ donation in developing countries are important and humanitarian global responsibilities. Revision of the country’s legal regulations is important and is warranted in this regard.

Background: Shoulder surgeries are among the most painful orthopedic procedures, and optimal perioperative management is crucial for recovery. Interscalene block (ISB) is widely used for analgesia, yet its effects on wound healing and postoperative immune function remain poorly defined. This study aimed to determine whether ISB enhances wound healing, modulates immune responses, and improves recovery outcomes compared with general anesthesia (GA). Methods: This study is a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial designed to evaluate the effects of interscalene block on wound healing and postoperative immune response in patients undergoing elective open shoulder surgery.Thirty-four patients undergoing elective rotator cuff repair were randomly assigned to GA (n = 17) or ISB (n = 17) via sealed-envelope randomization. Wound healing was assessed using the Toronto Symptom Assessment System for Wounds (TSAS-W) on postoperative days 5 and 14. Immune response was evaluated by platelet count and serum levels of IL-1, IL-2, TNF-α, EGF, TGF-β, and PDGF at baseline, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain (VAS), mobilization times, analgesic consumption, and incidence of nausea and vomiting. Statistical analyses incorporated parametric and non-parametric tests, repeated measures analysis, chi-square/Fisher’s exact tests, Bonferroni correction, and effect size calculations (p < 0.05). Results: ISB significantly accelerated wound healing, with lower TSAS-W scores on days 5 and 14 compared with GA (p < 0.05). Postoperative platelet counts and levels of IL-1, IL-2, EGF, TGF-β, and PDGF were significantly higher in the ISB group at 24 and 48 hours (p < 0.05), whereas TNF-α remained unchanged. ISB also provided superior analgesia, reflected by lower VAS scores, reduced analgesic consumption, faster mobilization, and decreased incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (all p < 0.05). Conclusion: Interscalene block not only provides effective analgesia but also enhances wound healing and modulates immune function, promoting faster and safer recovery after shoulder surgery. These findings support ISB as a multifaceted perioperative intervention with benefits beyond pain control.