Abstract Background: Pain management in hip fracture patients is of great importance for reducing postoperative morbidity and mortality. Multimodal techniques, including peripheral nerve blocks, are preferred for postoperative analgesia. Older-old hip fracture patients with high ASA scores are highly sensitive to the side effects of NSAIDs and opioids. Our aim was to investigate the effectiveness of the recently popularized Supra-Inguinal Fascia Iliaca Block (SIFIB) in this population. Methods: Forty-one ASA III-IV patients who underwent SIFIB + PCA (G-SIFIB) or PCA alone (Group Control: GC) after general anesthesia were evaluated retrospectively. In addition to 24-hour opioid consumption, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, opioid-related side effects, block-related complications, and length of hospital stay were compared. Results: Twenty-two patients in G-SIFIB and 19 patients in GC were evaluated. The postoperative 24-hour opioid consumption was lower in G-SIFIB than in GC (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant reduction in VAS scores at the postoperative 1st, 3rd, and 6th hours at rest (p < 0.001) and during movement (p < 0.001 for the 1st and 3rd hours, and p = 0.02 for the 6th hour) in G-SIFIB compared to GC. There was no difference in pain scores at the 12th and 24th hours postoperatively. While there was no difference between the groups in terms of other side effects, respiratory depression was significantly higher in GC than in G-SIFIB (p = 0.01). Conclusion: The SIFIB technique has a significant opioid-sparing effect and thus reduces opioid-related side effects in the first 24 hours after hip fracture surgery in older-old patients.

RESUMO JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: Os anti-inflamatórios não esteroides (AINEs) são frequentemente usados para controlar a dor após artroscopia. A adição de um opiáceo oral eficaz (codeína) aos AINEs pode ser mais efetiva e diminuir o consumo de opiáceo parenteral no pós-operatório. O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a eficácia e os efeitos colaterais de naproxeno sódico e uma nova preparação, naproxeno sódico-fosfato de codeína, quando administrados preventivamente para meniscectomia artroscópica. MÉTODOS: Foram randomicamente divididos em dois grupos 61 pacientes para receber naproxeno sódico por via oral (Grupo N) ou naproxeno sódico-fosfato de codeína (Grupo NC) antes da cirurgia. A cirurgia foi feita sob anestesia geral. Meperidina intravenosa foi iniciada por meio de analgesia controlada pelo paciente (ACP) para todos os pacientes. O desfecho primário foi o escore de dor na primeira hora de pós-operatório, avaliada com a escala visual snalógica (EVA). A sedação foi avaliada com a escala de sedação de Ramsey. A primeira demanda de ACP, o consumo de meperidina no pós-operatório, os efeitos colaterais e os dados hemodinâmicos também foram registrados. RESULTADOS: Os grupos foram demograficamente comparáveis. As medianas dos escores EVA tanto em repouso quanto em movimento foram significativamente menores no Grupo NC comparado com o Grupo N; exceto para movimento na avaliação de 18 horas (p < 0,05). A mediana do tempo até a primeira demanda de ACP foi menor no Grupo N em comparação com o Grupo NC (p < 0,001). O consumo de meperidina foi maior no Grupo N em comparação com o Grupo NC (p < 0,001). Não houve diferença entre os grupos em relação aos efeitos colaterais (p > 0,05). CONCLUSÕES: A combinação de naproxeno sódico-fosfato de codeína forneceu analgesia mais efetiva que naproxeno sódico, sem aumentar os efeitos colaterais.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are frequently used to control arthroscopic pain. Addition of oral effective opioid "codeine" to NSAIDs may be more effective and decrease parenteral opioid consumption in the postoperative period. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and side effects of naproxen sodium and a new preparation naproxen sodium-codeine phosphate when administered preemptively for arthroscopic meniscectomy. METHODS: Sixty-one patients were randomized into two groups to receive either oral naproxen sodium (Group N) or naproxen sodium-codeine phosphate (Group NC) before surgery. The surgery was carried out under general anesthesia. Intravenous meperidine was initiated by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for all patients. The primary outcome measure was pain score at the first postoperative hour assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Sedation assessed by Ramsey Sedation Scale, first demand time of PCA, postoperative meperidine consumption, side effects and hemodynamic data were also recorded. RESULTS: The groups were demographically comparable. Median VAS scores both at rest and on movement were significantly lower in Group NC compared with Group N, except 18th hour on movement (p < 0.05). The median time to the first demand of PCA was shorter in Group N compared with Group NC (p < 0.001). Meperidine consumption was higher in Group N compared with Group NC (p < 0.001). There was no difference between groups with respect to side effects (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of naproxen sodium-codeine phosphate provided more effective analgesia than naproxen sodium and did not increase side effects.

RESUMOJUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVO: A sedação em paciente dependente de diálise com doença renal em estágio terminal (DRET) requer cautela como resultado da administração de altas doses de sedativos e suas complicações. Os regimes de sedação com múltiplas drogas podem ser superiores e vantajosos em relação ao consumo menor de drogas e aos eventos adversos que ocorrem facilmente em pacientes com DEET. Avaliamos os efeitos da pré-medicação com dexmedetomidina sobre o consumo de propofol, os níveis de sedação com os escores da Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (OAA/S) e do índice bispectral (BIS), as alterações hemodinâmicas e os potenciais efeitos colaterais em pacientes geriátricos com DRET submetidos à cirurgia para fratura de quadril sob raquianestesia.MÉTODO: Neste estudo randômico, controlado e duplo-cego, 60 pacientes idosos (idade ≥ 65 anos), com DRET e fratura de quadril, agendados para fixação intramedular de haste femoral anterógrada foram designados para grupos para receberam infusão intravenosa de solução salina (Grupo C) ou pré-medicação com infusão de 0,5 mg kg/10 min de dexmedetomidina (DEX) (Grupo D). Todos os pacientes receberam infusão de propofol após a indução da raquianestesia.RESULTADOS: O consumo total de propofol, a dose de propofol necessária para os níveis-alvo de sedação de acordo com os escores da OAA/S, os valores do BIS e os tempos de recuperação foram significativamente menores no Grupo D (p < 0,001). O tempo para atingir o escore 4 na OAA/S e valores BIS ≤ 80 foi significativamente inferior no Grupo C em comparação com o Grupo D (p < 0,001). Os eventos adversos foram semelhantes em ambos os grupos.CONCLUSÃO: A pré-medicação com dexmedetomidina reduz o consumo de propofol no intraoperatório para manter o nível-alvo de sedação. Portanto, a pré-medicação com DEX em dose baixa em combinação com infusão de propofol pode ser uma opção para sedação em pacientes geriátricos com DRET.

ABSTRACTBACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Sedation in dialysis dependent end-stage renal disease patients requires caution as a result of performing high doses of sedatives and its complications. Multidrug sedation regimens might be superior and advantage on lesser drug consumption and by the way adverse events which occur easily in end-stage renal disease patients. We evaluated the effects of dexmedetomidine premedication on propofol consumption, sedation levels with Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scores and the bispectral index and the hemodynamic changes, potential side effects in geriatric patients with end-stage renal disease who underwent hip fracture surgery under spinal anesthesia.METHOD: In this randomized, controlled, double-blind study 60 elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years) with end-stage renal disease and hip fracture scheduled for anterograde femoral intramedullary nailing were assigned to groups that received either intravenous saline infusion (Group C) or dexmedetomidine 0.5 g/kg/10 min infusion for premedication (Group D). All the patients received propofol infusion after the induction of the spinal anesthesia.RESULTS: Total propofol consumption, propofol dose required for targeted sedation levels according to Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scores and bispectral index levels, recovery times were significantly lower in Group D (p < 0.001). The time to reach to Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation score 4 and to achieve bispectral index ≤ 80 was significantly lower in Group C compared with Group D (p < 0.001). Adverse events were similar in both groups.CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine premedication lowers intraoperative propofol consumption to maintain targeted level of sedation. Therefore low dose dexmedetomidine premedication in addition to propofol infusion might be an alternative in geriatric patients with end-stage renal disease for sedation