CERTIFICATE

IMPACT FACTOR 2021

Subject Area

  • Life Sciences / Biology
  • Architecture / Building Management
  • Asian Studies
  • Business & Management
  • Chemistry
  • Computer Science
  • Economics & Finance
  • Engineering / Acoustics
  • Environmental Science
  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Pharmaceutical Sciences
  • General Sciences
  • Materials Science
  • Mathematics
  • Medicine
  • Nanotechnology & Nanoscience
  • Nonlinear Science
  • Chaos & Dynamical Systems
  • Physics
  • Social Sciences & Humanities

Why Us? >>

  • Open Access
  • Peer Reviewed
  • Rapid Publication
  • Life time hosting
  • Free promotion service
  • Free indexing service
  • More citations
  • Search engine friendly

Comparative study of nitroglycerin and esmolol for controlled hypotension in fess

Author: 
Dr. Rahul, S. and Dr. Kusugal, R. R.
Subject Area: 
Health Sciences
Abstract: 

Background: Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery (FESS) is a minimally invasive procedure for diseases of the nose and paranasal sinuses like chronic sinusitis and polypus rhinosinusitis. Intraoperative bleeding causing poor visibility of surgical field is a major concern during FESS and this may result in many complications. Controlled hypotension is a technique wherein arterial blood pressure is lowered in a deliberate but controlled manner to minimise blood loss and enhance operative field visibility. Aim: To compare the hypotensive efficacies of Nitroglycerin (NTG) and Esmolol (ESM) in terms of changes in heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure (MAP), duration of surgery and operative field visibilty assessment by surgeon using Average category scale (ACS) or Fromme scale, in patients undergoing FESS under General Anesthesia (GA). Methods: 80 ASA grade I and II patients aged between 18-60 years undergoing FESS under GA were divided into 2 groups of 40 each to receive either Inj. Esmolol 500 µg/kg over 30 seconds followed by infusion at 100-300 µg/kg/min or Inj. NTG at 5-10 µg/kg/min. All patients were premedicated with oral Alprazolam and Ranitidine on the previous night. In the operation theatre, all patients were premedicated with i.v. Glycopyrrolate, i.v. Midazolam and i.v. Fentanyl, and then induced with i.v. Propofol. Laryngoscopy and intubation was facilitated by i.v. Succinyl choline. Anaesthesia was maintained with Isoflurane vapour in balanced nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture and i.v Vecuronium for muscle relaxation. Heart rate, Systolic, Diastolic and Mean arterial blood pressure were assessed at 5, 10, 15 minutes and every 15 minutes from the start of infusion till completion of surgery. Visibility of the surgical field was rated by the surgeon using ACS with 0 being the driest and 5 making surgery impossible. Results: Intraoperative Heart rate was less in Esmolol group compared to NTG group. Both drugs produced desired hypotension but ideal operative conditions were achieved at a higher MAP of 80.5 ± 2.5 mm Hg in ESM group, while same operating conditions were achieved at lower MAP of 70.8 ± 1.2 mm Hg in NTG group. ACS scores were significantly low in ESM group compared to NTG group (p < 0.001). Mean duration of surgery was less in ESM group than NTG group (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Both drugs are safe and effective in providing optimal operating conditions but Esmolol is a superior agent to NTG for controlled hypotension in FESS under GA, as it minimizes surgical blood loss, enhances operative field visibility and reduces duration of surgery with minimal reduction in MAP. Absence of reflex tachycardia was the added advantage of ESM over NTG.

PDF file: 

ONLINE PAYPAL PAYMENT

IJMCE RECOMMENDATION

Advantages of IJCR

  • Rapid Publishing
  • Professional publishing practices
  • Indexing in leading database
  • High level of citation
  • High Qualitiy reader base
  • High level author suport

Plagiarism Detection

IJCR is following an instant policy on rejection those received papers with plagiarism rate of more than 20%. So, All of authors and contributors must check their papers before submission to making assurance of following our anti-plagiarism policies.

 

EDITORIAL BOARD

Dr. Swamy KRM
India
Dr. Abdul Hannan A.M.S
Saudi Arabia.
Luai Farhan Zghair
Iraq
Hasan Ali Abed Al-Zu’bi
Jordanian
Fredrick OJIJA
Tanzanian
Firuza M. Tursunkhodjaeva
Uzbekistan
Faraz Ahmed Farooqi
Saudi Arabia
Eric Randy Reyes Politud
Philippines
Elsadig Gasoom FadelAlla Elbashir
Sudan
Eapen, Asha Sarah
United State
Dr.Arun Kumar A
India
Dr. Zafar Iqbal
Pakistan
Dr. SHAHERA S.PATEL
India
Dr. Ruchika Khanna
India
Dr. Recep TAS
Turkey
Dr. Rasha Ali Eldeeb
Egypt
Dr. Pralhad Kanhaiyalal Rahangdale
India
DR. PATRICK D. CERNA
Philippines
Dr. Nicolas Padilla- Raygoza
Mexico
Dr. Mustafa Y. G. Younis
Libiya
Dr. Muhammad shoaib Ahmedani
Saudi Arabia
DR. MUHAMMAD ISMAIL MOHMAND
United State
DR. MAHESH SHIVAJI CHAVAN
India
DR. M. ARUNA
India
Dr. Lim Gee Nee
Malaysia
Dr. Jatinder Pal Singh Chawla
India
DR. IRAM BOKHARI
Pakistan
Dr. FARHAT NAZ RAHMAN
Pakistan
Dr. Devendra kumar Gupta
India
Dr. ASHWANI KUMAR DUBEY
India
Dr. Ali Seidi
Iran
Dr. Achmad Choerudin
Indonesia
Dr Ashok Kumar Verma
India
Thi Mong Diep NGUYEN
France
Dr. Muhammad Akram
Pakistan
Dr. Imran Azad
Oman
Dr. Meenakshi Malik
India
Aseel Hadi Hamzah
Iraq
Anam Bhatti
Malaysia
Md. Amir Hossain
Bangladesh
Ahmet İPEKÇİ
Turkey
Mirzadi Gohari
Iran