Browsing by Author "Luthe, Sarah Kyuragi"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A comparison between the adductor pollicis muscle and the abductor digiti minimi muscle using electromyography AF-201P in rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block: a prospective comparative study
    (BMC, 2022-04-23) Iwasaki, Hajime; Sato, Hanae; Takagi, Shunichi; Kitajima, Osamu; Luthe, Sarah Kyuragi; Suzuki, Takahiro; Anesthesia, School of Medicine
    Background: The AF-201P, a new electromyography (EMG)-based neuromuscular monitor has been developed recently. The aim of this clinical study was to compare two ulnar nerve innervated muscles: the adductor pollicis (AP) muscle and the abductor digiti minimi (ADM) muscle during the recovery from rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block by using EMG AF-201P. Methods: Twenty patients undergoing surgery with general anesthesia were enrolled in the study. During total intravenous general anesthesia, train-of-four (TOF) and post-tetanic counts (PTC) responses following 0.9 mg/kg rocuronium administration were concurrently monitored at the AP and the ADM muscles with EMG AF-201P on the opposite arms. At the end of the surgery, sugammadex 2 mg/kg was administered when TOF counts of 2 (TOFC2) was observed at both muscles. The primary outcome of the study was time from administration of rocuronium to first appearance of PTC response (first PTC). The secondary outcomes of the study were time from administration of rocuronium to TOF count of 1 (TOFC1), time from first PTC to TOFC1 (PTC-TOF time), time to TOFC2, and time from administration of sugammadex to TOF ratio ≥ 0.9. Agreement between the two muscles was assessed using the Bland-Altman analysis. Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Results: Nineteen patients were included in the analysis. Time to first PTC was significantly faster at the ADM muscle than the AP muscle (24.4 ± 11.4 min vs 32.4 ± 13.1 min, p = 0.006). PTC-TOF time was significantly longer with the ADM muscle than the AP muscle (19.4 ± 7.3 min vs 12.4 ± 10.6 min, p = 0.019). There were no significant differences in time to TOFC2 and sugammadex-facilitated recovery between the two muscles. Bland-Altman analyses showed acceptable ranges of bias and limits of agreement of the two muscles. Conclusions: The ADM muscle showed a good agreement with the AP muscle during rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block but faster recovery of PTC response when using EMG.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparison of intrathecal morphine with continuous patient-controlled epidural anesthesia versus intrathecal morphine alone for post-cesarean section analgesia: a randomized controlled trial
    (BMC, 2020-06-03) Sato, Izumi; Iwasaki, Hajime; Luthe, Sarah Kyuragi; Iida, Takafumi; Kanda, Hirotsugu; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background Several neuraxial techniques have demonstrated effective post-cesarean section analgesia. According to previous reports, it is likely that patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) without opioids is inferior to intrathecal morphine (IM) alone for post-cesarean section analgesia. However, little is known whether adding PCEA to IM is effective or not. The aim of this study was to compare post-cesarean section analgesia between IM with PCEA and IM alone. Methods Fifty patients undergoing elective cesarean section were enrolled in this prospective randomized study. Patients were randomized to one of two groups: IM group and IM + PCEA group. All patients received spinal anesthesia with 12 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, 10 μg of fentanyl, and 150 μg of morphine. Patients in IM + PCEA group received epidural catheterization through Th11–12 or Th12-L1 before spinal anesthesia and PCEA (basal 0.167% levobupivacaine infusion rate of 6 mL/h, bolus dose of 3 mL in lockout interval of 30 min) was commenced at the end of surgery. A numerical rating scale (NRS) at rest and on movement at 4,8,12,24,48 h after the intrathecal administration of morphine were recorded. In addition, we recorded the incidence of delayed ambulation and the number of patients who requested rescue analgesics. We examined NRS using Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test following repeated measures analysis of variance; p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results Twenty-three patients in each group were finally analyzed. Mean NRS at rest was significantly higher in IM group than in IM + PCEA group at 4 (2.7 vs 0.6), 8 (2.2 vs 0.6), and 12 h (2.5 vs 0.7), and NRS during mobilization was significantly higher in IM group than in IM + PCEA group at 4 (4.9 vs 1.5), 8 (4.8 vs 1.9), 12 (4.9 vs 2), and 24 h (5.7 vs 3.5). The number of patients who required rescue analgesics during the first 24 h was significantly higher in IM group compared to IM + PCEA group. No significant difference was observed between the groups in incidence of delayed ambulation. Conclusions The combined use of PCEA with IM provided better post-cesarean section analgesia compared to IM alone. Trial registration UMIN-CTR (Registration No. UMIN000032475). Registered 6 May 2018 – Retrospectively registered.