cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Ristiawan Muji Laksono
Contact Email
anestpain@ub.ac.id
Phone
+6281336172271
Journal Mail Official
anestpain@ub.ac.id
Editorial Address
Anesthesiology and Intensive Therapy Program, Medicine FacultyBrawijaya University, Malang Indonesia Jl. Jaksa Agung Suprapto no.2, Malang, Indonesia
Location
Kota malang,
Jawa timur
INDONESIA
Journal of Anaesthesia and Pain
Published by Universitas Brawijaya
ISSN : 27223167     EISSN : 27223205     DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.21776/ub.jap
Core Subject : Health,
Health Professions Medicine & Pharmacology
Journal of Anaesthesia and Pain is a peer-reviewed and open-access journal that focuses on anesthesia and pain. Journal of Anaesthesia and Pain, published by Anesthesiology and Intensive Therapy Specialist Program of Medicine Faculty, Brawijaya University. This journal publishes original articles, case reports, and reviews. The Journal s mission is to offer the latest scientific information on anesthesiology and pain management by providing a forum for clinical researchers, scientists, clinicians, and other health professionals. This journal publishes three times a year. Subjects suitable for the Journal of Anaesthesia and Pain are all subjects related to anesthesiology and pain management.
Arjuna Subject : Kedokteran - Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Articles 133 Documents
 10   11   12   13   14 
Evaluation of The Clinical Performance of LMA Proseal versus Blockbuster LMA in Adult Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia: a Randomized Interventional Comparative Study Ryavanaki, Basavaraj; Gupta, Arushi; Sahni, Ameeta; Mehta, Khushboo
Journal of Anaesthesia and Pain Vol. 6 No. 2 (2025): May
Publisher : Faculty of Medicine, Brawijaya University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.21776/

Abstract

Background: The oropharyngeal Leak pressure (OLP) and the minimum effective cuff volume are the two most important determinants of the clinical performance of any supraglottic airway (SGA) device. This study aims to evaluate the clinical performance of the Blockbuster LMA compared with the LMA ProSeal. Methods: One-Hundred patients (18-65 years) posted for elective surgeries under general anesthesia were prospectively randomized into group P (LMA ProSeal) and Group B (Blockbuster LMA). The primary outcome was to measure the OLP at 5 and 30 min after device insertion, and, secondarily, to compare the minimum effective cuff volume to prevent leak, ease and time of insertion, number of attempts, leak fraction, anatomical position of the devices, and adverse respiratory events, if any. Result: The OLP of LMA ProSeal was lower than Blockbuster LMA (28.14 ± 2.79 cmH2O versus 32.62 ± 2.66 cmH2O at 5 minutes and 29.28 ± 3.1 cmH2O versus 33.82 ± 2.55 cmH2O at 30 minutes). The cuff pressure exerted by the Blockbuster LMA at the minimum effective volume to prevent leak was higher than that of the LMA ProSeal. The first attempt success rate and Brimacombe score were higher in Blockbuster LMA. The airway-sealing quality and the incidence of postoperative adverse respiratory events were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: Blockbuster LMA has a higher OLP, a better first-attempt success rate, and an anatomical position than LMA ProSeal, with higher pressure at the minimum effective volume of cuff inflation to prevent leaks, along with the added advantage of acting as a conduit for intubation.
Comparison of C-Reactive Protein Level and Pain Score in 2% Lidocaine Premedication with Tourniquet Handling and 2% Lidocaine Mixture in Propofol Injection Thamrin, Muhammad Husni; Novianto, Bambang; Leofirsta, Hendra
Journal of Anaesthesia and Pain Vol. 6 No. 2 (2025): May
Publisher : Faculty of Medicine, Brawijaya University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.21776/

Abstract

Background: Propofol is a widely used anesthetic induction agent, yet post-injection pain is a frequent adverse effect. Common strategies to reduce this pain include venous occlusion following lidocaine administration and the admixture of lidocaine with propofol. This study investigates whether lidocaine pretreatment with tourniquet application provides superior pain relief compared to the admixture method. Method: We conducted a single-center, randomized controlled, single-blind trial involving patients scheduled for elective surgery. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either lidocaine pretreatment with tourniquet application (n=15) or a lidocaine-propofol admixture (n=15). The primary outcomes were pain scores and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, while secondary outcomes included heart rate and blood pressure measurements. Result: 30 patients underwent elective surgery in Dr. Moewardi General Hospital between October and November 2023. Post propofol injection, increments in pain severity were observed in both treatment groups. However, lower pain severity was observed in the tourniquet handling group.  After injection, moderate and severe CRP levels were recorded in the lidocaine-propofol admixture (33.3% and 6.7%, respectively), whereas no moderate or severe CRP levels were discovered in the tourniquet handling group. The tourniquet handling group experienced less discomfort after propofol injection (3.139 ± 0.743 vs. 4.27±0.704, p=0.001). Lower CRP levels were evaluated in the experimental group (0.279 ± 0.121 to 1.68 ± 2.49, p=0.002). Conclusion: Lidocaine pretreatment with tourniquet occlusion or one minute before delivering propofol as an anesthetic induction agent was more effective than the lidocaine-propofol admixture in relieving pain after propofol injections.
Are Obstetric Anesthesia Services at District Hospitals Safe in Low-to Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review Pillay, Camira; Pillay, Shaylin
Journal of Anaesthesia and Pain Vol. 6 No. 2 (2025): May
Publisher : Faculty of Medicine, Brawijaya University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.21776/

Abstract

Background: Currently, the global maternal mortality rate stands at 152 deaths per 100,000 live births, with many low to middle-income countries (LMICs) not on track to meet this goal. Inadequate obstetric anesthesia is a significant contributor to preventable maternal and newborn deaths. The inability of district hospitals to provide safe anesthesia may lead to poor outcomes. This paper reviews existing data to assess the safety of obstetric anesthesia in district hospitals in LMICs and identify challenges. Methods: A scoping review of grey and peer-reviewed literature was conducted using terms such as “obstetrics,” “anesthesia,” “low to middle-income countries,” and “first-level hospitals.” Of the 3780 citations screened, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. Result: A narrative synthesis was employed to report the findings, with quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Common issues in LMICs included a shortage of skilled anesthetic providers, lack of funding, poor infrastructure, and limited access to essential equipment, drugs, and blood products. Conclusion: Obstetric anesthesia provision in LMICs, especially at district hospitals, is inadequate. None of the hospitals assessed could provide safe anesthesia. Investments in basic infrastructure, including reliable water and electricity, are needed. Promoting anesthesia appointments and training programs in district hospitals can have a significant, lasting impact on mothers, infants, and the community, helping achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Page 14 of 14 | Total Record : 133

 10   11   12   13   14 

Filter by Year

2020 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 7 No. 1 (2026): January Vol. 6 No. 3 (2025): September Vol. 6 No. 2 (2025): May Vol. 6 No. 1 (2025): January In Press Vol. 5 No. 3 (2024): September Vol 5, No 3 (2024): September Vol 5, No 2 (2024): May Vol. 5 No. 2 (2024): May Vol 5, No 1 (2024): January Vol. 5 No. 1 (2024): January Vol 4, No 3 (2023): September Vol. 4 No. 3 (2023): September Vol. 4 No. 2 (2023): May Vol 4, No 2 (2023): May Vol 4, No 1 (2023): January Vol. 4 No. 1 (2023): January Vol 3, No 3 (2022): September Vol 3, No 2 (2022): May Vol. 3 No. 2 (2022): May Vol 3, No 1 (2022): January Vol 2, No 3 (2021): September Vol 2, No 2 (2021): May Vol 2, No 1 (2021): January Vol 1, No 3 (2020): September Vol 1, No 2 (2020): May Vol 1, No 1 (2020): January More Issue