Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 109765

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : July | Volume : 16 | Issue : 7 | Page : UC59 - UC63 Full Version

Comparison of Preoperative Magnesium Sulphate and Budesonide Nebulisation in Reducing the Incidence and Severity of Postoperative Sore Throat- A Randomised Controlled Study


Published: July 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/55519.16657
Laishram Rani Devi, Ibemhal Heisnam, Kasomhung Soreingam, Laishram Dhanachandra Singh, Sentila Shangne, Kalpana Thongram, Bishakha Keishab, Devanathan Balusamy

1. Postgraduate Trainee, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India. 2. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India. 5. Postgraduate Trainee, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India. 6. Postgraduate Trainee, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India. 7. Postgraduate Trainee, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, M

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Laishram Dhanachandra Singh,
Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India.
E-mail: dhanachandralaishram1971@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: General anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation, being one of the most commonly performed procedures in clinical anaesthesiology, is not without adverse effects. Postoperative Sore Throat (POST) is one of the common adverse effects with a varying incidence. Prophylactic management of POST is recommended to improve the quality of postanaesthesia care and recovery.

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of preoperative nebulisation with magnesium sulphate and budesonide in reducing the incidence and severity of POST.

Materials and Methods: This randomised double-blinded control study was conducted in the Department of Anaesthesiology at Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India, from September 2021 to December 2021. The study included 120 patients, of either sex, aged between 20-60 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I and II posted for elective surgery requiring general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation. The patients were randomly divided into three groups of 40 patients each. Group M was nebulised with 250 mg magnesium sulphate, Group B with 250 mcg budesonide and Group S was nebulised with normal saline, 15 minutes prior to the induction of anaesthesia. Incidence and severity of POST was documented at 0 hr, 2 hrs, 24 hrs and 48 hrs postextubation on a 0-3 score. Data collected was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0 and the results were then statistically analysed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Chi-square test.

Results: The incidence of POST was more in saline group when compared with budesonide and magnesium sulphate group at all points of observation (0 hr, 2 hrs, 24 hrs and 48 hrs). The severity of POST was moderate in saline group while the other two groups experienced mild severity. This was statistically significant at 0 hr, 2 hrs and 24 hrs (p-value <0.05). But at 48 hrs severity of POST among the three groups was not significant.

Conclusion: Preoperative nebulisation with magnesium sulphate and budesonide significantly reduces the incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat.

Keywords

Endotracheal intubation, General anaesthesia, Prophylaxis, Sore throat

Postoperative Sore Throat (POST) is a common sequela after endotracheal intubation and is ranked as the 8th most undesirable outcome after general anaesthesia by the American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) (1). POST hampers patient’s recovery from anaesthesia and delays the patient’s return to normal routine activities. The primary etiological factor implicated in this problem is the use of airway instrumentation which commonly includes direct laryngoscopy and the Endotracheal Tube (ETT). The process of airway instrumentation leads to mucosal injury causing inflammation of the airway, mucosal dehydration and mucosal oedema which gives rise to the various signs and symptoms of POST comprising of pain and discomfort in the throat, hoarseness, cough, difficulty in swallowing and even difficulty in breathing. Several studies have also identified certain risk factors for the development of POST which include age, female gender, smoking, prolonged duration of anaesthesia, large sized ETT, pre-existing upper respiratory tract infection, lack of humidified air in the anaesthesia delivery system, and use of high flow anaesthetic mixture (2),(3).

Both pharmacological and non pharmacological methods have been studied for the prophylactic management of POST. The non pharmacological methods include use of smaller sized ETT, smooth and gentle laryngoscopy and intubation, gentle oropharyngeal suctioning, minimizing intracuff pressure, intubation after full relaxation and extubation with fully deflated tracheal cuff (4). Pharmacological methods include use of steroids like dexamethasone and betamethasone, local anaesthetics like lignocaine, Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSA IDs), zinc lozenges, N-Methyl D-Aspartate (NMDA) antagonists like ketamine (5).

Experimental data have shown the role of NMDA receptors in central and peripheral nociception (6). The role of NMDA receptor antagonists in reducing POST is gaining popularity. Magnesium sulphate, being an NMDA receptor antagonist, thus have a potential role in reducing POST. Steroids, by virtue of their anti-inflammatory action, have also been found to have a beneficial effect in reducing POST. Budesonide has potent local anti-inflammatory properties and its usefulness in prevention of POST has been investigated with promising results when administered before induction of anaesthesia through oxygen driven atomizing inhalation (7). Effectiveness of preoperative inhaled magnesium sulphate versus inhaled budesonide for prevention of postoperative sore throat, cough and hoarseness of voice after oral endotracheal intubation studied by Kotb MM et al., concluded that preoperative budesonide and magnesium sulphate inhalation significantly decreased the incidence of POST. The study was, however, conducted among patients who were smokers (8).

As far as authors knowledge is concerned, there is no study which compared these drugs among normal patients for the prevention of POST. The hypothesis was that preoperative nebulisation with magnesium and budesonide will decrease the incidence and severity of POST as compared to placebo with normal saline. With the consideration, role of magnesium sulphate as an NMDA antagonist and budesonide as a steroid in the prevention of POST, the present study aimed to compare the efficacy of preoperative nebulisation with magnesium sulphate and budesonide in reducing the incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat.

Material and Methods

The randomised double-blinded control study was conducted in the Department of Anaesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India, from September 2021 to December 2021. The ethical clearance was obtained from the Institute of Ethical Clearance {Letter No. Ac/06/IEC/JNIMS/2018 (PGT). CTRI/2021/03/032191}. A written informed consent was taken from all the participants and the procedure was fully explained.

Sample size calculation: The sample size was calculated with alpha value of 0.05 and power of 80% and treatment effect size of 36.7% (5). The calculated sample size was 35 per group. To accommodate any exclusion, 40 patients for each group were selected. So, a total of 120 patients were selected for the study.

Inclusion criteria: A total of 120 patients, aged between 20-60 years, of either sex, belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I or II and undergoing elective surgery in supine position under general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation were included for the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients with pre-existing sore throat, upper respiratory tract infection, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) or Asthma, Mallampati score more than II, and those undergoing oral or nasal surgeries were excluded from the study. Patients requiring more than one attempt of intubation were also excluded from the study.

Patients enrolled for the study were randomised into three groups of 40 each, using computer-generated random number tables in opaque sealed envelopes prepared by other personnel not involved in the study (Table/Fig 1). The envelopes were opened by a nurse not involved in the study. Preoperative nebulization was given to the groups as follows:

Group M received 0.5 mL (250 mg) of 50% w/v magnesium sulphate with 4.5 mL normal saline.
Group B was given 1 mL (250 mcg) budesonide with 4 mL normal saline.
Group S received 5 mL normal saline.

Procedure

The patients were nebulised with the study drugs 15 minutes prior to the induction of anaesthesia. After nebulisation, patient was shifted to the operating room and connected to standard ASA monitors {non invasive blood pressure, Electrocardiogram (ECG), Oxygen saturation (SpO2) and End Tidal Carbon Dioxide (EtCO2)}. After preoxygenation for 3 minutes and premedication with intravenous (i.v.) ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg) and i.v. fentanyl (2 mcg/kg), anaesthesia was induced with i.v. propofol (2 mg/kg). Tracheal intubation was facilitated with i.v. succinylcholine (2 mg/kg) using a sterile soft seal polyvinyl chloride endotracheal tube with internal diameter 7-7.5 mm in female and 7.5-8.0 mm in male patients. The tracheal cuff was inflated with air and the cuff pressure was maintained between 20-25 cm of H2O using a hand-held tracheal cuff pressure manometer. Anaesthesia was maintained using oxygen-nitrous oxide mixture with sevoflurane and i.v. vecuronium 0.08 mg/kg. On completion of surgery, neuromuscular blockade was reversed with i.v. glycopyrrolate 10 mcg/kg and i.v. neostigmine 50 mcg/kg. Extubation was done after fully deflating the tracheal cuff and gentle oropharyngeal suctioning. Patients were shifted to Postanaesthesia Care Unit (PACU) and assessed for incidence and severity of sore throat according to the scoring system (9) (Table/Fig 2). Incidence of cough and hoarseness of voice were also evaluated in all the groups. The first observation at PACU was taken as 0 hr, then further assessed at 2 hrs, 24 hrs and 48hrs. The scores were noted and compared among the three groups.

Statistical Analysis

Data was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) inc. Chicago 2, USA, window-based version 22.0. For continuous data, mean and standard deviation was calculated. Categorical data was described in frequency and percentage. Chi-square test, paired t test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used for comparison between groups. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 120 patients undergoing general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation, with no losses to follow-up throughout the study. There was no significant difference regarding age, sex, Body Mass Index (BMI), ASA status and duration of anaesthesia among the study groups (Table/Fig 3).

The incidence of sore throat was highest just after extubation (0 hr). Patients in saline group recorded the highest incidence (65%). At other points of observation, the incidence of sore throat was also significantly higher in saline group as compared to the other two groups. However, the incidence of sore throat was comparable between magnesium sulphate and budesonide group (Table/Fig 4).

Regarding severity of sore throat, most patients in saline group had moderate sore throat, while patients in both magnesium sulphate and budesonide group had mild sore throat. This observation was statistically significant at 0hr and 2hrs between saline and magnesium sulphate group (p-value <0.05) while it was significant at 0hr, 2hrs and 24hrs between saline and budesonide group. At 48 hrs, severity score among the three groups was not significant. Also, there was no statistically significant difference in severity of POST between budesonide and magnesium sulphate at all points of observation (Table/Fig 5).

The incidence of hoarseness was also highest at 0hr in saline group (35%) compared to magnesium sulphate (10%) and budesonide (12.5%) groups. The difference was statistically significant at 0 hr, 2 hrs and 24 hrs (p-value <0.05). However, at 48 hrs, although the hoarseness was higher in saline group the difference among the three groups was not statistically significant. Magnesium sulphate and budesonide groups showed comparable incidence of hoarseness at all points of observation (Table/Fig 6).

The incidence of cough was highest in saline group (25%) compared to magnesium sulphate and budesonide groups. However, the difference was not statistically significant (p-value <0.05) (Table/Fig 7).

Discussion

Postoperative sore throat negatively affects patient’s satisfaction during recovery in the post-operative period. Prophylaxis for POST is highly recommended to improve the quality of anaesthesia care. Various drugs and techniques have been tried to alleviate or minimize the occurrence of POST. Use of steroids and NMDA receptor antagonists have been found to have a beneficial effect in reducing the incidence and severity of POST (10). The present study compared the effect of preoperative nebulisation with budesonide and magnesium sulphate on the incidence and severity of POST. Nebulisation technique was adopted for the ease of administration, better patient compliance, smaller volume requirement, reduced risk of adverse events compared with other methods such as intravenous, topical application, gargle. Inhalational route also has the advantage of less systemic side effects due to limited systemic absorption (11).

Female sex and younger age are identified as risk factors for the development of POST. Both Chen KT et al., and Biro P et al., noted a significant higher incidence of POST in females (12),(13). However, a study by Jaensson M et al., observed no significant gender difference regarding the occurrence of POST (14).

One of the mechanisms involved in the development of POST is localized inflammation of pharyngo-laryngeal mucosa. Steroids, by virtue of its anti-inflammatory action, are believed to reduce the incidence and severity of POST. They can be used either locally, intravenously or in nebulised form. Ayoub MC et al., and Selvaraj T et al., showed that application of betamethasone gel on endotracheal tube significantly reduces the incidence of sore throat (15),(16). Thomas S et al., also found that intravenous dexamethasone reduced the incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat (17). Budesonide inhalation suspension has been proven to be very effective and well tolerated in patients with asthma and rhinitis. The effectiveness of inhalational budesonide in reducing the incidence and severity of POST in patients undergoing thyroid surgery was reported by Chen YQ et al., (18). In the present study also, the incidence and severity of sore throat was significantly lower in budesonide group compared to saline group at all points of observation. Similar result was also reported by Rajan S et al., (7).

It is widely accepted that NMDA receptors are located both in central and peripheral nervous system and play a role in nociception and inflammation. Recently, use of NMDA receptor antagonists like ketamine and magnesium sulphate to alleviate postoperative sore throat have gained the attention of many researchers. The peripheral analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of ketamine in preventing POST have been documented in many clinical trials. Mostafa RH et al., reported that perioperative ketamine nebulisation was very effective in reducing the intensity of POST in paediatric patients (19). The results of magnesium nebulisation have also been favorable in reducing POST. Borazan H et al., had concluded from their study that preoperative magnesium lozenges reduced the incidence and severity of POST (20). Yadav M et al., also reported that preoperative magnesium sulphate nebulisation reduced the incidence of POST compared to normal saline (21). The current study also noted a significant decrease in the incidence of sore throat in magnesium sulphate group compared to saline group at all points of observation. Studies by Padma T et al., and Kumar BG et al., also reported reduced incidence of sore throat with preoperative magnesium nebulisation (22),(23).

In the present study the groups were comparable regarding age, sex, BMI, ASA status and duration of surgery. The incidence of POST was significantly lower in magnesium sulphate and budesonide group compared to normal saline group. However, it was comparable between magnesium sulphate and budesonide group. Two meta-analyses conducted by Kuriyama A et al., also concluded that aerosolized corticosteroids and topical administration of magnesium can be effective in preventing postoperative sore throat. The peak incidence of POST was recorded at 2 hour to 4 hour post operatively in most studies. In the present study also the incidence of POST was maximum at 0 hrs and 2 hrs and least at 48 hrs in all the study groups (24),(25).

Regarding the severity of sore throat, authors observed that sore throat was of mild type in both magnesium sulphate and budesonide group while saline group experienced moderate sore throat. The difference was statistically significant at 0 hr, 2 hrs, and 24 hrs. But at 48 hrs, the severity of sore throat among the three groups was not significant. This observation was similar to the finding of Sheikh SA et al., who found that less severe sore throat occurred in patients receiving magnesium sulphate or dexamethasone (26). Teymourian H et al., also concluded that low dose magnesium gargle decreased the severity of sore throat more effective than ketamine (27).

The study by Kotb MM et al., also mentioned that preoperative budesonide inhalation significantly decreased the incidence of hoarseness of voice but magnesium sulphate nebulisation had no effect on cough and hoarseness. However, we observed that the incidence of hoarseness of voice was significantly decreased in both budesonide and magnesium sulphate group compared to control at 0hr, 2hrs and 24hrs but the effect on cough was not significant (8). Rajan S et al., also found that postoperative hoarseness of voice was significantly reduced at 12hr and 24hrs after preoperative budesonide nebulisation. The incidence of cough was more in saline group than budesonide and magnesium sulphate group but the difference was not statistically significant. There were no adverse outcomes either local or systemic after nebulisation of the study drugs. This might be due to the use of relatively lower dosage of drugs (7).

Limitation(s)

Factors like lack of humidification of anaesthetic gas mixture, use of systemic analgesic and different choices of analgesics in different patients could interfere in the interpretation of results. In addition, subjective assessment of POST and inter individual variation during endotracheal intubation were also other factors that could interfere in the assessment and interpretation of POST.

Conclusion

Preoperative nebulisation with budesonide and magnesium sulphate was significantly more effective in reducing the incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat in patients undergoing general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation.

References

1.
Macario A, Weinger M, Truong P, Lee M. Which clinical anaesthesia outcomes are both common and important to avoid? The perspective of a panel of expert anaesthesiologists. Anesth Analg. 1999;88(5):1085-91. [crossref]
2.
Higgins PP, Chung F, Meze G. Post operative sore throat after ambulatory surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2022;88(4):582-84. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Fenta E, Teshome D, Melaku D, Tesfaw A. Incidence and factors associated with postoperative sore throat for patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation at Debre Tabor General Hospital, North central Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Surgery Open. 2020;25:01-05. [crossref]
4.
Mc Hardy FE, Chung F. Post operative sore throat: Cause, prevention and treatment. Anaesthesia. 1999;54:444-53. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Canbay O, Celebi N, Sahin A, Celiker V, Ozgen S, Aypar U. Ketamine gargle for attenuating post operative sore throat. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100(4):490-93. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Carlton SM, Coggeshall RE. Inflammation- induced changes in peripheral glutamate receptor. Brain Res. 1999;820:63-70. [crossref]
7.
Rajan S, Tosh P, Paul J, Kumar L. Effect of inhaled budesonide suspension, administered using a metered dose inhaler, on postoperative sore throat, hoarseness of voice and cough. Indian J Anaesth. 2018;62(1):66-71. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Kotb MM, Fouad A, Sabry AM, Othman YM. Effectiveness of inhaled magnesium sulphate versus inhaled budesonide in reducing post-operative sore throat in smokers after endotracheal intubation. Surgery Curr Res. 2015;5:07.
9.
Mostafa E, Abdel Rahman A, Mahmoud M. Magnesium Sulfate Nebulizer versus Ketamine Nebulizer in decreasing incidence and severity of Post operative sore throat with endotracheal intubation in adults. Eqyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2018;73(8):7244-50. [crossref]
10.
Flexman AM, Duggan LV. Postoperative sore throat: Inevitable side effects or preventable nuisance. Can J Anaesth. 2019;66:1009-13. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Yu J, Ren L, Min S, Yang Y, Lv F. Nebulized pharmacological agents for preventing postoperative sore throat: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(8):e0237174. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Chen KT, Tzeng JI, Lu CL, Liu KS, Chen YW, HSU CS, et al. Risk factors associated with post operative sore throat after tracheal intubation: An evaluation in the post anaesthetic recovery room. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2004:42:03-08.
13.
Biro P, Seitert B, Pasch T. Complaints of sore throat after tracheal intubation: A prospective evaluation. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005:22:307-11. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Jaensson M, Gupta A, Nilsson U. Gender differences in sore throat and hoarseness following endotracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway: A prospective study. BMC Anesthesiology. 2014;14:56-58. [crossref] [PubMed]
15.
Ayoub MC, Ghobashy A, McGrimley L, Koch ME, Qadir S, Silverman DG. Wide spread application of topical steroids to decrease sore throat, hoarseness and cough after tracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 1998;87:714-16. [crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Selvaraj T, Dhanpal R. Evaluation of the application of topical steroids on the endotracheal tube in decreasing postoperative sore throat. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2002;18:167-70.
17.
Thomas S, Beevi S. Dexamethasone reduces the severity of postoperative sore throat. Can J Anaesth. 2007;54(11):897-90. [crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Chen YQ, Li JP, Xiao J. Prophylactic effectiveness of budesonide inhalation in reducing postoperative sore throat complaints. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;271:1667-72. [crossref] [PubMed]
19.
Mostafa RH, Saleh AN, Hussein MM. A Comparative study of three nebulized medications for the prevention of post operative sore throat in paediatric population. The Open Anesthesia Journal. 2018;12:85-93. [crossref]
20.
Borazan H, Kececioglu A, Okesli S, Otelcioglu S. Oral magnesium lozenge reduces post operative sore throat. A randomized prospective, placebo-controlled study. Anesthesiology. 2012;117(3):512-18. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Yadav M, Chaleemuru N, Ramachandran G. Effect of magnesium sulphate nebulization on the incidence of postoperative sore throat. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2016;32:168. [crossref] [PubMed]
22.
Padma T, Raju B, Raviraj GS. The effect of nebulized magnesium sulphate on the incidence of postoperative sore throat. Academia Anesthesiologica Internal. 2020;5:185-90. [crossref]
23.
Kumar BG, Balakrishna M, Ramesh B. The effect of nebulized magnesium sulphate on the incidence of post operative sore throat. JMSCR. 2020(8):190-96.
24.
Kuriyama A, Maeda H, Sun R. Aerosolized corticosteroids to prevent post operative sore throat in adults. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Aesthesiologica Scandinavia. 2019;63(3):282-91. [crossref] [PubMed]
25.
Kuriyama A, Maeda H, Sun R. Topical application of magnesium to prevent intubation related sore throat in adult surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2019;66(9):1082-94. [crossref] [PubMed]
26.
Sheikh SA, Mir AH, Yousuf A, Naqash IA. Evaluation of efficacy of intravenous magnesium sulphate versus dexamethasone for prevention of post operative sore throat in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery in prone position: A prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study. Int J Adv Med. 2019;6(3):833-39. [crossref]
27.
Teymourian H, Saeedi N, Mohseni G, Zadeh S K, Hajizadeh N. Magnesium gargle versus ketamine gargle in post operative sore throat pain; A randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Cell Mol Anesth. 2020;5(3):164-70. [crossref]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/55519.16657

Date of Submission: Feb 23, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Mar 23, 2022
Date of Acceptance: May 10, 2022
Date of Publishing: Jul 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Mar 01, 2022
• Manual Googling: Apr 21, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Jun 20, 2022 (21%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com