Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9699102

Therapeutic suggestions given during neurolept-anaesthesia decrease post-operative nausea and vomiting.

L H Eberhart·H J Döring·P Holzrichter·R Roscher·W Seeling
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A double-blind randomized study was performed in 100 patients undergoing thyroidectomy to evaluate the effect of positive therapeutic suggestions made during neurolept-anaesthesia. The classic droperidol-fentanyl-N2O technique was used as these drugs preserve the neurophysiological functions required to process the information in the therapeutic suggestions given during general anaesthesia. Patients in the suggestion group heard positive non-affirmative suggestions during the whole operation. An autoreverse tape player was used. The control group listened to an empty tape. Both groups were comparable with respect to demographic variables, anaesthetic technique, drug dosage, duration of anaesthesia and surgery. Patients in the suggestion group suffered significantly less from post-operative nausea or vomiting (suggestion: 47.2% vs. control: 85.7%) and required less anti-emetic treatment (suggestion: 30.6% vs. control: 68.6%). We conclude that therapeutic suggestions heard during neurolept-anaesthesia are processed and decrease post-operative nausea and vomiting in patients after thyroidectomy.

Explore related subjects

Anesthesia, GeneralAnesthetics, InhalationAnesthetics, IntravenousAntiemeticsAntipsychotic AgentsDouble-Blind MethodDroperidolEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleFentanylHumansMaleMiddle AgedNauseaNitrous OxidePostoperative ComplicationsSuggestionTape RecordingThyroidectomyVomitingClinical TrialComparative StudyJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled Trial

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L H Eberhart, H J Döring, P Holzrichter, R Roscher, W Seeling. 1998. Therapeutic suggestions given during neurolept-anaesthesia decrease post-operative nausea and vomiting.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2346.1998.00321.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1999

Local anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia for cardioverter-defibrillator implantation.

AIMS: Cardioverter-defibrillators are conventionally implanted under general anaesthesia. However, implantation under conscious sedation is being increasingly used. It has been shown that cardioverter-defibrillators can be implanted in a more pacemaker-like approach: under local anaesthesia for the surgical procedure, and with mild sedation for defibrillation threshold testing only. The aim of the present study was to compare local and general anaesthesia in defibrillation threshold testing and implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty patients were assigned to two groups: in the first 20 consecutive patients the cardioverter-defibrillator was implanted under general anaesthesia (GA), and in the subsequent 20 patients under local anaesthesia (LA). There was no significant difference between the two groups in regard of age, body weight, underlying disease, left ventricular ejection fraction, and NYHA classification. The defibrillation threshold was 13.7 +/- 5.5 J under local anaesthesia versus 10.7 +/- 4.7 J under general anaesthesia (n.s.). For defibrillation threshold testing 7.9 +/- 3.6 shocks had to be applied in patients under general anaesthesia versus 6.2 +/- 1.3 shocks under local anaesthesia (n.s.). Mean heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation and mean arterial blood pressure remained stable throughout defibrillation threshold testing, irrespective of the type of anaesthesia used. The duration of the surgical procedure was 62 +/- 16 min under GA and 60 +/- 14 min under LA (n.s.), however, the entire implantation procedure was significantly longer in patients under general anaesthesia than in those under local anaesthesia (124 +/- 24 min and 97 +/- 22 min, respectively, p < 0.005). There were no complications in either group and the procedure was well tolerated. With the use of local anaesthesia the cost of anaesthesia were reduced by 72%. CONCLUSION: Local anaesthesia in combination with mild sedation is as safe and well tolerated as general anaesthesia in cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. Lidocaine used for local anaesthesia does not adversely affect the defibrillation threshold. Device implantation in a pacemaker-like approach results in a significant reduction in total procedure time and costs, and facilitates scheduling of the procedure.

Anesthesia, General↗