| Literature DB >> 35340963 |
Neelesh Bhatnagar1, Saurabh Bhateja1, Lalita Jeenger1, Govind Mangal1, Sunanda Gupta1.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The current study was designed to compare the effects of two different doses of 3% hypertonic saline with mannitol on intraoperative events during decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Primary outcome measures included assessment of intraoperative brain relaxation, hemodynamic variables, and serum electrolytes. Effect on the postoperative outcome, in terms of the Glasgow coma scale (GCS), length of stay in the ICU, and mortality were the secondary outcome measures. Material andEntities:
Keywords: Brain relaxation; hypertonic saline; mannitol; traumatic brain injury
Year: 2022 PMID: 35340963 PMCID: PMC8944362 DOI: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_169_18
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol ISSN: 0970-9185
Comparison of demographic data, GCS, and duration of surgery
| Variable | Parameter | Group HS1 (n=35) | Group HS2 (n=29) | Group M (n=26) | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age Group | <35 | 17 (48.57%) | 10 (34.48%) | 11 (42.31%) | 0.25 (NS) |
| 35-49 | 15 (42.86%) | 15 (51.72%) | 11 (42.31%) | 0.45 (NS) | |
| >49-65 | 3 (8.57%) | 4 (13.79%) | 4 (15.38%) | 0.47 (NS) | |
| Mean±SD | 35.94±8.07 | 37.83±11.32 | 36.62±9.62 | 0.62 (NS) | |
| Sex | Female | 9 (25.71%) | 4 (13.79%) | 6 (23.08%) | P=0.48 (NS) |
| Male | 26 (74.29%) | 25 (86.21%) | 20 (76.92%) | ||
| GCS | ≤8 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 0.67 (NS) |
| 9-12 | 21 | 15 | 13 | 0.46 (NS) | |
| 13-15 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0.49 (NS) | |
| Duration of Surgery (h) | 1-2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0.77 (NS) |
| >2-3 | 27 | 25 | 22 | 0.33 (NS) | |
| >3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0.23 (NS) | |
| Mean±SD | 2.20±0.47 | 2.10±0.38 | 2.17±0.41 | 0.63 (NS) |
Grading of brain relaxation in different groups as per neurosurgeon
| Grade as per Neurosurgeon | Group HS1 (n=35) | Group HS2 (n=29) | Group M (n=26) | ANOVA P | HS1/HS2 P | HS1/M P | HS2/M P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5 (14.3%) | 20 (69%) | 3 (11.5%) | <0.001 (HS) | <0.001 (HS) | >0.05 (NS) | <0.001 (HS) |
| 2 | 23 (65.7%) | 6 (20.7%) | 9 (34.6%) | <0.001 (HS) | <0.001 (HS) | <0.01 (HS) | >0.05 (NS) |
| 3 | 3 (8.6%) | 1 (3.4%) | 6 (23.1%) | 0.16 (NS) | >0.05 (NS) | >0.05 (NS) | <0.05 (S) |
| 4 | 4 (11.4%) | 2 (6.9%) | 8 (30.8%) | 0.14 (NS) | >0.05 (NS) | >0.05 (NS) | <0.05 (S) |
| (1%2) | 28 (80%) | 26 (89.66%) | 12 (46.1%) | <0.05 (S) | >0.05 (NS) | <0.01 (HS) | <0.01 (HS) |
Acceptable grades
Figure 1Graphical representation of mean Na% levels in different groups during surgery
Figure 2Graphical representation of mean K% levels in different groups during surgery
Distribution of patients according to GCS in different groups
| GCS Score | Groups | Preop GCS Mean±SD | After 24 h GCS Mean±SD | At time of Discharge GCS Mean±SD | ANOVA, P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-8 | GROUP HS1 (n=12) | 6.416±1.676 | 6.454±1.507 | 6.714±1.380 | P=0.915 (NS) |
| GROUP HS2 (n=9)# | 5.272±1.272 | 6.235±1.521 | 7.142±1.214 | P=0.029 (S) | |
| Group M (n=11) | 6.727±1.190 | 6.75±1.288 | 6.571±1.511 | P=0.954 (NS) | |
| ANOVA, P | P=0.051 (NS) | P=0.646 (NS) | P=0.725 (NS) | ||
| 9-12 | GROUP HS1 (n=21) | 10.285±0.845 | 9.809±0.928 | 10.478±0.897 | P=0.046 (S) |
| GROUP HS2 (n=13)# | 9.933±0.457 | 10.6±1.074 | 10.23±1.091 | P=0.000 (HS) | |
| Group M (n=13) | 10.153±1.068 | 9.916±0.792 | 10.933±1.099 | P=0.030 (S) | |
| ANOVA, P | P=0.452 (NS) | P=0.097 (NS) | P=0.179 (NS) | ||
| 13-15 | GROUP HS1 (n=2) | 13.5±0.707 | 13.666±0.577 | 13.6±0.547 | P=0.953 (NS) |
| GROUP HS2 (n=3) | 13.333±0.577 | 13.5±0.707 | 13.2±0.447 | P=0.795 (NS) | |
| Group M (n=2) | 14.5±0.707 | 14±1.414 | 13.75±0.957 | P=0.743 (NS) | |
| ANOVA, P | P=0.236 (NS) | P=0.846 (NS) | P=0.446 (NS) |