We have investigated whether, after major abdominal surgery, the addition of remifentanil to tramadol for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia improved analgesia and lowered pain scores, compared to a patient-controlled analgesia containing only tramadol.

Sixty-two patients were allocated randomly to receive an intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with tramadol alone (T), or tramadol plus remifentanil (TR), in a double-blind randomized study. Whenever patients complained of pain, they were allowed to use bolus doses of tramadol (0.2 mg kg−1) or tramadol (0.2 mg kg−1) plus remifentanil (0.2 μg kg−1) mixture every 10 min without a time limit and background infusion. Discomfort, sedation, pain scores, total and bolus patient-controlled analgesia tramadol consumption, and side-effects were recorded for up to 24 h after the start of patient-controlled analgesia.

Pain scores at rest were statistically significantly lower in the TR group at 6, 12 and 24 h than in T group (P < 0.05). Pain scores at movement and patient comfort scores were also found to be significantly lower in the TR group at 2, 6, 12 and 24 h than in the T group (P < 0.05). Although the TR group consumed less tramadol, there were no statistically significant differences in the cumulative tramadol consumptions between the groups at any time. However, the number of patients requiring rescue analgesia and average supplementary doses used was significantly higher in the T group than in the TR group (P < 0.05).

After major abdominal surgery, adding remifentanil (0.2 μg kg−1) to tramadol (0.2 mg kg−1), with 10-min lockout times, for patient-controlled analgesia offered better postoperative pain relief and patient comfort, without causing any sedation or respiratory depression.

The technology of bispectral index monitoring is based on an algorithm developed from adults. This study was conducted to investigate the difference in bispectral index monitoring between paediatric and adult patients under intravenous anaesthesia.

In all, 68 patients undergoing elective surgery were divided into three groups as follows: Group A (younger children, n = 20, 3 yr ⩽yr ⩽ 5 yr), Group B (older children, n = 20, 6 yr ⩽yr ⩽12 yr), Group C (adults, n = 28, 25 yr ⩽yr ⩽50 yr). All patients were induced by plasma target-controlled infusion of propofol till loss of consciousness (loss of response to verbal commands and eyelash reflex). The plasma concentration (Cppropofol) and effect-site concentration (Cepropofol) of propofol and bispectral index values were compared at loss of consciousness and regaining of consciousness. During the operation, remifentanil was infused at a fixed rate of 0.25μg kg−1 min−1, and the minute average bispectral index values of three groups were also compared at different stable concentrations of propofol (Cepropofol = Cppropofol = 2, 3, 4 and 5 μg mL−1, respectively).

At loss of consciousness and regaining of consciousness, the bispectral index values in Group A (loss of consciousness: 74.7 ± 6.3, regaining of consciousness: 81.1 ± 10.5) were significantly higher than those in Group C (loss of consciousness: 68.6 ± 9.4, regaining of consciousness: 74.5 ± 6.0) (P < 0.01). There was no statistical difference between Cppropofol in all groups at loss of consciousness and regaining of consciousness. The Cepropofol at loss of consciousness in Group A (3.57 ± 0.60 μg mL−1) and B (3.25 ± 0.44 μg mL−1) were significantly higher than those in Group C (2.15 ± 0.86 μg mL−1) (P < 0.01). At the same stable concentrations of propofol, the bispectral index values in Group A and B were significantly higher than those in Group C, and the bispectral index values in Group A were also significantly higher than those in Group B (P < 0.01). The Cepropofol when bispectral index ⩽ 40 in Group A, B, C were approximately at 6, 5 and 3 μg mL−1, respectively.

At loss of consciousness and regaining of consciousness, the bispectral index values of younger children group are significantly higher than those of adults. At the same stable concentrations of propofol, the bispectral index values are significantly different between children and adults. This study suggests that there is deviation when the adult algorithm of bispectral index monitoring is applied in paediatric patients under intravenous anaesthesia.

To evaluate the use of remifentanil–propofol administered as target-controlled infusion during awake fibreoptic intubation for anticipated difficult tracheal intubation in acromegalic patients.

In all, 20 consecutive acromegalic patients underwent elective endonasal endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. After premedication with midazolam 0.03 mg kg−1, initially a target-controlled infusion of remifentanil 1.0 ng mL−1 and propofol 1.5 μg mL−1 was started. The fibreoptic intubation was performed by the same physician experienced with the fibreoptic technique. During the fibreoptic procedure the target concentrations of remifentanil and propofol ranged between 1.0 and 5.0 ng mL−1, and between 1.5 and 3.5 μg mL−1, respectively. Changes in heart rate and mean arterial pressure were recorded during airway manipulation, during tracheal intubation, and at 1 and 3 min after. On the first postoperative day, patient recall and level of discomfort during fibreoptic intubation were evaluated.

Endotracheal intubation was efficaciously and quickly secured in all patients. A significant increase in mean arterial pressure and heart rate was recorded only during tracheal intubation (P < 0.05). Oxygenation was sufficient and no bradypnea or apnoea was recorded. All patients later described their anaesthetic experience as satisfactory. During fibreoptic intubation, remifentanil (ng mL−1) and propofol (μg mL−1) mean effect-site concentrations were 3.2 ± 0.3 and 2.0 ± 1.0, respectively.

Remifentanil and propofol target-controlled infusion provided satisfactory conscious sedation allowing for successful oral fibreoptic intubation in acromegalic patients with no recall.

We retrospectively reviewed the first 25 planned cases of awake craniotomies using the ‘asleep–awake’ technique, an alternative to the often-used ‘asleep–awake–asleep’ technique.

The patients were anaesthetized using propofol/remifentanil anaesthesia, a laryngeal mask and controlled ventilation according to a protocol defined before the start of this series of patients. The patients were awakened before the brain mapping and were kept awake throughout the rest of the procedure allowing for additional mapping and modification of the resection of the tumour if symptoms should develop. A small dose of remifentanil was infused during this period if necessary.

Twenty-three patients were mapped as planned. One patient was not awakened due to protrusion of the brain during the awakening phase. Another patient was intubated preoperatively as it was impossible to obtain a tight laryngeal mask. All of the 23 patients were awake as from when the mapping session began and throughout the rest of the operation. In five cases the resection of the tumour was modified as symptoms emerged. These symptoms all subsided in due course. No case of hypoxia was recorded. In no case the respiratory rate was below 10 breaths min−1 in the awake period. Complications were comparable to other studies. The patients in the present study were all satisfied with the method.

Different methods of anaesthesia have been described, but no method has been shown to be superior. The presented method seems to be a rational and useful technique allowing for modification of tumour resection, if symptoms should develop. The method was well tolerated by the patients.

Postoperative shivering and pain are frequent problems in patients recovering from anaesthesia with particularly high incidences being observed after remifentanil–isoflurane-based general anaesthesia. The opioid tramadol is generally effective in preventing shivering and treating pain, but its effects are not characterized after remifentanil-based general anaesthesia. This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study evaluated the effects of intraoperative intravenous tramadol on postoperative shivering and pain after remifentanil-based general anaesthesia.

After Ethics Committee approval, 60 patients scheduled for lumbar disc surgery were included. Surgery was performed under general anaesthesia (remifentanil, isoflurane). Patients were randomly assigned to receive 2 mg kg−1 tramadol in 30 mL 0.9% saline infused intravenously (n = 30) or 30 mL saline (n = 30) 45–30 min before skin closure. The following parameters were assessed every 10 min for 2 h: shivering, pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, sedation, heart rate, non-invasive blood pressure and peripheral oxygen saturation. The primary outcome variable was the incidence of shivering during the first 2 postoperative hours. Secondary variables were: shivering intensity, pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, sedation, heart rate, non-invasive blood pressure and peripheral oxygen saturation.

Shivering was less frequent in patients treated with tramadol (20% vs. 70%, P = 0.0009) and was of lower intensity (severe shivering: 10% vs. 46.7%, P = 0.003). Pain scores were similar between the groups and all other secondary outcome variables failed to reveal significant differences.

Compared with placebo, intraoperative intravenous administration of 2 mg kg−1 tramadol reduces the incidence and extent of postoperative shivering without alterations in pain perception after lumbar disc surgery under remifentanil–isoflurane-based general anaesthesia.

A randomized and prospective study was performed to compare anaesthetic characteristics and stress hormone responses of two anaesthetic techniques.

Forty-two patients undergoing day case excisional biopsy of breast mass were randomly assigned to receive propofol–remifentanil or sevoflurane–N2O. Anaesthesia was induced and maintained either with sevoflurane and 50% N2O in oxygen or with target-controlled remifentanil and propofol in 50% oxygen and air. Anaesthetic depth was monitored by the bispectral index.

The times for induction (2.9 vs. 1.7 min) and for laryngeal mask insertion (5.7 vs. 3.3 min) were longer in the sevoflurane–N2O group than in the propofol–remifentanil group. However, apnoea (57.1% vs. 9.5%) and bradycardia (23.8% vs. 0%) were more prevalent with propofol–remifentanil. In the sevoflurane–N2O group, the emergence times to a verbal response (10.6 vs. 3.7 min), to extubation (11.8 vs. 4.0 min) and to orientation (14.7 vs. 4.8 min) were longer than in the propofol–remifentanil group. There were significantly more nausea (38.1% vs. 4.8%) and vomiting (19.2% vs. 0%) in the sevoflurane–N2O group than in the propofol–remifentanil group. The time to discharge was similar although there was less postoperative pain in the sevoflurane–N2O group. There were no differences in the perioperative cortisol responses in the two groups.

Smoother induction of anaesthesia was seen with sevoflurane–N2O. Propofol–remifentanil showed a quicker emergence with less nausea/vomiting. There were similar perioperative cortisol responses in the two anaesthetic techniques.

Controlled hypotension is frequently used for obtaining better exposure during tympanoplasty. The aim of this study was to compare dexmedetomidine, a selective, short-acting, central α2-adrenergic agonist with remifentanil, an ultra-short-acting opioid with properties similar to other μ-specific agonists, regarding their effects in achieving controlled hypotension and improving surgical field exposure and surgeon’s satisfaction during tympanoplasty.

In this prospective, double-blind pilot study, 24 consecutive patients scheduled for elective tympanoplasty were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg−1 over 10 min at anaesthesia induction followed by 0.4–0.8 μg kg−1 h−1 infusion during maintenance or remifentanil 1 μg kg−1 over 1 min at anaesthesia induction followed by 0.2–0.4 μg kg−1 min−1 infusion during maintenance. Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were recorded before induction, at incision, 30, 60, 90 and 120 min after incision and 10 min after stopping the infusion. Surgical field exposure condition and satisfaction scores were assessed by the surgeon, blinded to the study drugs.

Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were significantly lower in the remifentanil group compared with the dexmedetomidine group at all times (P = 0.03 and 0.036, respectively). Surgical field exposure condition (3 ± 0.01 vs. 2.3 ± 0.7; P = 0.039) and surgeons’ satisfaction (3 ± 0.01 vs. 2.25 ± 0.87; P = 0.039) scores were significant after remifentanil compared with dexmedetomidine.

Infusion of dexmedetomidine, at the doses used in this study, was less effective than remifentanil in achieving controlled hypotension, good surgical field exposure condition and surgeons’ satisfaction during tympanoplasty.

Early recovery after anaesthesia is gaining importance in fast track management. The aim of this study was to quantify psychomotor recovery within the first 24 h after propofol/remifentanil anaesthesia using the Short Performance Test (Syndrom Kurztest (SKT)), consisting of nine subtests. The hypothesis was that psychomotor performance remains reduced 24 h after anaesthesia.

Thirty-seven patients scheduled for elective surgery took part in the study. The SKT was performed on the day before general anaesthesia (T0), 10, 30, 90 min and 24 h after extubation (T1). Parallel versions were used to minimize learning effects. Anaesthesia was introduced and maintained with remifentanil/propofol as a target controlled infusion. Propofol plasma concentration was measured 10 and 90 min after extubation. Perioperative pain management included novaminsulfon and piritramide.

Up till 90 min after surgery and anaesthesia, psychomotor performances were significantly reduced as the lower test results in all SKT subtests indicated (P ⩽ 0.007 vs. baseline T0). In the three memory subtests (ST 2, ST 8 and ST 9), psychomotor performance was still reduced on the first postoperative day (P ⩽ 0.005; T1 vs. T0). There was no correlation between propofol plasma concentration and the psychometric test results.

Propofol/remifentanil-based target controlled general anaesthesia for surgery is associated with a reduced psychomotor function up to the first postoperative day. Further studies are needed to confirm the usefulness of the SKT in the perioperative period and to clarify which components in the perioperative period are responsible for a lower performance in the SKT.