Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:09:24.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postoperative condition after the use of remifentanil with a small dose of piritramide compared with a fentanyl-based protocol in patients undergoing craniotomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2005

T. van der Zwan ,
W. D. M. Baerts ,
R. S. G. M. Perez  and
J. J. de Lange
T. van der Zwan
Affiliation:
VU University Medical Centre (VUMC), Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands HAGA Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands
W. D. M. Baerts
Affiliation:
VU University Medical Centre (VUMC), Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
R. S. G. M. Perez
Affiliation:
VU University Medical Centre (VUMC), Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
J. J. de Lange
Affiliation:
VU University Medical Centre (VUMC), Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Get access

Extract

Summary

Background and objective: The use of remifentanil requires other analgesics for postoperative pain relief compared to fentanyl in patients undergoing craniotomy. This could possibly reduce the postoperative advantages of this short-acting opioid.

Methods: We compared remifentanil and fentanyl-based anaesthesia in a randomized observer and patient blinded trial on patients, undergoing an elective craniotomy. Twenty patients received anaesthesia using remifentanil with a small dose of piritramide (0.1 mg kg−1) after closure of the dura mater. Twenty patients underwent a fentanyl-based protocol. In both groups, anaesthesia was induced with thiopental and rocuronium, and maintained with 0.6–1 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) isoflurane in a nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture 2 : 1 and rocuronium. Patients received 1 g of paracetamol rectally postoperatively. A visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, the Glasgow Coma Score, a modified Aldrete Score, arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) and piritramide consumption were evaluated every half an hour postoperatively.

Results: No significant differences were found for pain, Aldrete or Glasgow Coma scores or for PaCO2 between the groups when controlled for age, although the pain and Glasgow Coma Scores were consistently higher and PaCO2 lower in the remifentanil group. Furthermore, 13 out of 20 patients in the remifentanil group requested extra piritramide as opposed to 7 out of 20 in the fentanyl group (P = 0.11).

Conclusions: Despite the intraoperative use of piritramide in the remifentanil group, patients experienced more pain postoperatively. A significant influence of age on pain intensity was found. The use of remifentanil with a small dose of piritramide of 0.1 mg kg−1 has no evident advantage over the use of fentanyl considering the postoperative conditions after craniotomy.

Keywords

PAIN, postoperativeANALGESICS OPIOID, remifentanil, fentanyl, piritramideNEUROSURGICAL PROCEDURES, craniotomy
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 22 , Issue 6 , June 2005 , pp. 438 - 441
Copyright
© 2005 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Warner DS, Hindman BJ, Todd MM, et al. Intracranial pressure and hemodynamic effects of remifentanil versus alfentanil in patients undergoing supratentorial craniotomy. Anesth Analg 1996; 83: 348–353.Google Scholar
Ostapkovich ND, Baker KZ, Fogarty-Mack P, et al. Cerebral blood flow and reactivity is similar during remifentanil/N2O and fentanyl/N2O anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1998; 89: 358–363.Google Scholar
Baker KZ, Ostapkovich ND, Sisty MB, et al. Intact cerebral blood flow reactivity during remifentanil/nitrous oxide anesthesia. J Neurosurg Anesth 1997; 9: 134–140.Google Scholar
Verchère E, Grenier B, Mesli A, et al. Postoperative pain management after supratentorial craniotomy. J Neurosurg Anesth 2002; 14: 96–101.Google Scholar
Warner DS. Experience with remifentanil in neurosurgical patients. Anesth Analg 1999; 89: S33–S39.Google Scholar
Guy J, Hindman BJ, Baker KZ, et al. Comparison of remifentanil and fentanyl in patients undergoing craniotomy for space-occupying lesions. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 514–524.Google Scholar
Coles JP, Leary TS, Monteiro JN, et al. Propofol anesthesia for craniotomy: a double-blind comparison of remifentanil, alfentanil and fentanyl. J Neurosurg Anesth 2000; 12: 15–20.Google Scholar
Talke P, Caldwell JE, Brown R, et al. A comparison of three anesthetic techniques in undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial intracranial surgery. Anesth Analg 2002; 95: 430–435.Google Scholar
Balakrishnan G, Raudzens P, Samra SK, et al. A comparison of remifentanil and fentanyl in patients undergoing surgery for intracranial mass lesions. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 163–169.Google Scholar
Sneyd JR, Whaley A, Dimpel HL, et al. An open randomized comparison of alfentanil, remifentanil and alfentanil followed by remifentanyl in anaesthesia for craniotomy. Br J Anaesth 1998; 81: 361–364.Google Scholar
Gerlach K, Uhlig T, Hüppe M, et al. Remifentanil-propofol versus sufentanil-propofol anaesthesia for supratentorial craniotomy: a randomized trial. Eur J Anaesth 2003; 20: 813–820.Google Scholar