<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<sec><h3>Background</h3>
<p>Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) is a new concept to describe the cardiac output (CO) and stroke volume variation to guide intravenous fluid administration during surgery. LiDCOrapid (LiDCO, Cardiac Sensor System, UK Company Regd 2736561, VAT Regd 672475708) is a minimally invasive monitor that estimates the responsiveness of CO versus fluid infusion. We intend to find whether GDFT using the LiDCOrapid system can decrease the volume of intraoperative fluid therapy and facilitate recovery in patients undergoing posterior fusion spine surgeries in comparison to regular fluid therapy.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Methods</h3>
<p>This study is a randomised clinical trial, and the design was parallel. Inclusion criteria for participants in this study were patients with comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and ischemic heart disease undergoing spine surgery; exclusion criteria were patients with irregular heart rhythm or severe valvular heart disease. Forty patients with a previous history of medical comorbidities undergoing spine surgery were randomly and evenly assigned to receive either LiDCOrapid guided fluid therapy or regular fluid therapy. The volume of infused fluid was the primary outcome. The amount of bleeding, number of patients who needed packed red blood cell transfusion, base deficit, urine output, days of hospital length of stay and intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and time needed to start eating solids were monitored as secondary outcomes.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Results</h3>
<p>The volume of infused crystalloid and urinary output in the LiDCO group was significantly lower than that of the control group (p = .001). Base deficit at the end of surgery was significantly better in the LiDCO group (p &lt; .001). The duration of hospital length of stay in the LiDCO group was significantly shorter (p = .027), but the duration of ICU admission was not significantly different between the two groups.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>Goal-directed fluid therapy using the LiDCOrapid system reduced the volume of intraoperative fluid therapy.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>

Comparison of Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy Using LiDCOrapid System with Regular Fluid Therapy in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery as a Randomised Clinical Trial

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<sec><h3>Background and aims</h3>
<p>The pain of labour is very severe. Most women prefer painless labour to routine labour if they are aware of the methods of analgesia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine intravenous infusion on labour pain management in primipara term pregnant women.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Methods</h3>
<p>In this nonrandomised clinical trial with control group, all primipara term pregnant women from August 2019 to March 2020 were included. In the intervention group, after the active phase of labour, dexmedetomidine was given according to the protocol and continued until phase 2 of labour. The control group received no intervention to reduce pain. Patients in both groups were evaluated for fetal heart rate, Apgar scores, vital signs, pain intensity, and sedation score.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Results</h3>
<p>There were no significant differences in primary fetal heart rate, primary maternal hemodynamics, and mean Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes between the two groups (p > .05). There was no significant difference in the mean fetal heart rate in different stages between the two groups. Intragroup analysis in the intervention group showed that mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly decreased after drug administration but were in the normal range. The active phase of labour in the intervention group was significantly shorter than in the control group (p = 0.002). The mean Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score after dexmedetomidine administration decreased significantly from 9.25 at baseline to 4.61 after drug administration, 3.88 during labour, and 1.88 after placental expulsion. The mean Ramsay Sedation Scale score after dexmedetomidine administration increased significantly from 1.00 at baseline to 2.05 after drug administration, 2.22 during labour, and 2.05 after placental expulsion.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>Based on the study's results, the administration of dexmedetomidine to manage labour pain with careful monitoring of mother and fetus is recommended.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>

Evaluating the Effect of Dexmedetomidine Intravenous Infusion on Labour Pain Management in Primipara Pregnant Women: A Nonrandomised Clinical Trial Study

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<sec><h3>Background and aims</h3>
<p>For the prevention of PONV, we evaluated the efficacy of palonosetron compared with ondansetron along with dexamethasone in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynaecological surgery.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Methods</h3>
<p>A total of 84 adults, posted for elective laparoscopic surgeries under general anaesthesia were included in the study. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups (n = 42 each). Immediately after induction, patients in the first group (group I) received 4 mg ondansetron with 8 mg dexamethasone, and patients in the second group (group II) received 0.075 mg palonosetron. Any incidences of nausea and/or vomiting, the requirement of rescue antiemetic, and side effects were recorded.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Results</h3>
<p>In group I, 66.67% of the patients had an Apfel score of 2, and 33.33% of the patients had a score of 3. In group II, 85.71% of patients had an Apfel score of 2, and 14.29% of the patients had a score of 3. At 1, 4, and 8 hours, the incidence of PONV was comparable in both groups. At 24 hours there was a significant difference in the incidence of PONV in the group treated with ondansetron with dexamethasone combination (4/42) when compared to the palonosetron group (0/42). The overall incidence of PONV was significantly higher in group I (23.81%: ondansetron and dexamethasone combination) than in group II (7.14%: palonosetron). The need for rescue medication in group I was significantly high. Conclusion: Palonosetron was more efficacious compared to the combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone for preventing PONV for laparoscopic gynaecological surgery.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>

Antiemetic Efficacy of Palonosetron Compared with the Combination of Ondansetron and Dexamethasone for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Gynaecological Surgery

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<sec><h3>Background</h3>
<p>The procedures of introducing an airway by intubation are associated with increased risk of aerosolisation of SARS-CoV-2 virus, posing a high risk to the personnel involved. Newer and novel methods such as the intubation box have been developed to increase the safety of healthcare workers during intubation.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Methods (design)</h3>
<p>In this study, 33 anaesthesiologist and critical care specialists intubated the trachea of the airway manikin (US Laerdal Medical AS™) 4 times using a King Vision<sup>®</sup> videolaryngoscope and TRUVIEW PCD™ videolaryngoscope (with and without an intubation box as described by Lai). Intubation time was primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were first-pass intubation success rate, percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score and peak force to maxillary incisors.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Results</h3>
<p>Intubation time and the number of times a click was heard during tracheal intubation were considerably higher in both groups when an intubation box was used (<xref ref-type="table" rid="j_rjaic-2021-0004_tab_001">Table 1</xref>). When comparing the two laryngoscopes, the King Vision<sup>®</sup> videolaryngoscope enabled much less time to intubate than did the TRUVIEW laryngoscope, both with and without the intubation box. (P&lt;0.001) In both laryngoscope groups, first-pass successful intubation was higher without the intubation box, although the difference was statistically insignificant. POGO score was not affected by intubation box but a higher score was observed with King Vision<sup>®</sup> laryngoscope (<xref ref-type="table" rid="j_rjaic-2021-0004_tab_001">Tables 1</xref>,<xref ref-type="table" rid="j_rjaic-2021-0004_tab_002">2</xref>).</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>This study indicates that use of an intubation box makes intubation difficult and increases the time needed to perform it. King Vision<sup>®</sup> videolaryngoscope results in lesser intubation time and better glottic view as compared to TRUVIEW laryngoscope.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>

Evaluation of the effect of Intubation Box Use on Tracheal Intubation Difficulty with King Vision<sup>®</sup> and Truview Videolaryngoscope in Manikin in a Tertiary Care Hospital

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<sec><h3>Objective</h3>
<p>In the last few years there is a trend of transiting from the continuous epidural infusion (CEI) method for epidural analgesia to a new method – programmed intermittent epidural analgesia (PIEB). This change improves the quality of epidural analgesia, thanks to an increased spread of the anaesthetic in the epidural space and higher maternal satisfaction. Nevertheless, we must make sure that such change of method does not lead to worse obstetric and neonatal outcomes.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Materials and Methods</h3>
<p>This is a retrospective observational case control study. We compared several obstetrical outcomes between the CEI and PIEB groups, such as the rates of instrumental delivery, rates of caesarean section, duration of first and second stages of labour well as APGAR scores. We further segmented the subjects and examined them in groups of nulliparous and multiparous parturients.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Results</h3>
<p>2696 parturients were included in this study: 1387 (51.4%) parturients in the CEI group and 1309 (48.6%) parturients in the PIEB group. No significant difference was found in instrumental or caesarean section delivery rates between groups. This result held even when the groups were differentiated between nulliparous and multiparous. No differences were revealed regarding first and second stage duration or APGAR scores.</p>
</sec>
<sec><h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>Our study demonstrates transition from the CEI to the PIEB method does not lead to any statistically significant effects on either obstetric or neonatal outcomes.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>

the Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School

Department of Anesthesiology, Soroka University Medical Center and the Faculty of Health Sciences

Department of Obstetric Anesthesia, Shaare Zedek Medical Center

affiliated with the Hebrew University Hadassah School of Medicine

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center

Epidural Analgesia for Labour: Comparing the Effects of Continuous Epidural Infusion (CEI) and Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus (PIEB) on Obstetric Outcomes

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>Bull-related injury continues to contribute to an unacceptable number of serious injuries and deaths, and bullfighting continues to be a popular, deeply traditional celebration of the culture of many Iberic-American countries. Most accidents due to bull attacks are horn-related penetrating traumas. Blunt chest trauma can cause a wide range of clinical presentations and injuries, making the diagnostics and therapies extremely challenging. Consequently, it is vital to quickly identify major life-threatening chest wall and intrathoracic injuries. In this case report, we aimed to describe the complexity of the management and the treatment of a blunt trauma patient hit by a bull.</p>
</abstract>

Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care

“Fighting the Minotaur” A Complex Blunt Chest Trauma Due to a Bull Attack: A Case Report

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 30 (2023): Issue 1 (April 2023)

Volume 29 (2022): Issue 1 (July 2022)

Volume 28 (2021): Issue 2 (December 2021)

Volume 28 (2021): Issue 1 (July 2021)

Volume 27 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)

Volume 27 (2020): Issue 1 (July 2020)

Volume 26 (2019): Issue 1 (April 2019)

Volume 25 (2018): Issue 2 (October 2018)

Volume 25 (2018): Issue 1 (April 2018)

Romanian Journal of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care

 The Romanian Journal of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (Jurnalul Român de Anestezie Terapie Intensivă) is a biannual, in English, with abstracts in English and Romanian, ranked CNCS B+ and indexed Embase, PubMed and Scopus. This journal publishes papers reporting original clinical and experimental researches, reviews, case reports, editorials, guidelines, letters to Editor, book reviews as well as other materials considered adequate by the Editorial committee. In 2002, the Journal changed its name to “Jurnalul Român de Anestezie Terapie Intensivă” (ISSN 2344-2336) to better reflect its primary purpose. It continued to be published in Romanian, with abstracts in both Romanian and English, while 1-2 articles/issue were published in English only. We encouraged all Romanian authors to submit manuscripts written in English, and gradually the number of articles in English increased. The homepage has been written in English (www.jurnalul-anestezie.ro), and is accessible freely on-line; it was established in 2007 with the aim of widening its readership and promoting the Journal abroad. It contained: the Journal title, the title and abstracts of all published articles and the full text of articles in English. In 2008, the Journal benefited from the addition of an international editorial board of 8 members, which was subsequently enlarged to the current 22 members. The number of articles published in English increased, facilitating the inclusion of international experts tasked with reviewing the submitted manuscripts. The peer review enhanced the quality of the publications, stimulated additional original research, and eventually led to the indexing of the Journal in the Elsevier Bibliographic Database (EMBASE and SCOPUS) in 2009, and in the Romanian Ministry of Education CNCSIS B+ database. In 2014, in order to both increase the Journal’s readership internationally, and to attract a broader base of submissions, the Board decided to publish the Journal entirely in English, under the new name, “The Romanian Journal of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care” (ISSN 2392-7518). A native English-speaker editor has been recruited to assist non-native English-speaking authors with style and grammar, and a statistical editor was also added to the editorial process. In 2017 the Journal was accepted to be indexed in the PubMed Central database of the National Library of Medicine USA. The Romanian Journal of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (Rom J Anaesth Int Care) is intended for anaesthesia and intensive care clinicians, and for specialists in emergency medical care, pain research and pain management. The principal aim is to stimulate and promote scientific discovery by publishing research papers and manuscripts accompanied by editorials written by experts in the field. The editorials seek to place the research findings in the appropriate clinical context, highlighting how the information is directly applicable to patient care and how it benefits the clinician and the patient. The Journal also seeks to inform and update anaesthesiologists about clinical and regulatory developments by publishing reviews and educational materials such as Clinical Guidelines of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and those of our Romanian National Society.  Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 

Romanian Journal of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care

Volume 28 (2021): Issue 1 (July 2021)

Original Article

Comparison of Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy Using LiDCOrapid System with Regular Fluid Therapy in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery as a Randomised Clinical Trial

Evaluating the Effect of Dexmedetomidine Intravenous Infusion on Labour Pain Management in Primipara Pregnant Women: A Nonrandomised Clinical Trial Study

Antiemetic Efficacy of Palonosetron Compared with the Combination of Ondansetron and Dexamethasone for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Gynaecological Surgery

Evaluation of the effect of Intubation Box Use on Tracheal Intubation Difficulty with King Vision^® and Truview Videolaryngoscope in Manikin in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Epidural Analgesia for Labour: Comparing the Effects of Continuous Epidural Infusion (CEI) and Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus (PIEB) on Obstetric Outcomes

Case study

“Fighting the Minotaur” A Complex Blunt Chest Trauma Due to a Bull Attack: A Case Report

Search

All Volumes and Issues in this Journal

Romanian Journal of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care

Volume 28 (2021): Issue 1 (July 2021)

Original Article

Comparison of Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy Using LiDCOrapid System with Regular Fluid Therapy in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery as a Randomised Clinical Trial

Evaluating the Effect of Dexmedetomidine Intravenous Infusion on Labour Pain Management in Primipara Pregnant Women: A Nonrandomised Clinical Trial Study

Antiemetic Efficacy of Palonosetron Compared with the Combination of Ondansetron and Dexamethasone for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Gynaecological Surgery

Evaluation of the effect of Intubation Box Use on Tracheal Intubation Difficulty with King Vision® and Truview Videolaryngoscope in Manikin in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Epidural Analgesia for Labour: Comparing the Effects of Continuous Epidural Infusion (CEI) and Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus (PIEB) on Obstetric Outcomes

Case study

“Fighting the Minotaur” A Complex Blunt Chest Trauma Due to a Bull Attack: A Case Report

Search

All Volumes and Issues in this Journal

Evaluation of the effect of Intubation Box Use on Tracheal Intubation Difficulty with King Vision^® and Truview Videolaryngoscope in Manikin in a Tertiary Care Hospital