Middle-ear surgery under sedation: comparison of XXXX alone or @entity1363 with @entity1937 .

@entity1 @entity390 @entity148 @entity158 @entity1363 @entity1937
OBJECTIVE: Performance of middle-ear surgery under local anaesthesia has several advantages, but many @entity1 complain of @entity158 , @entity148 and adverse events (e.g. dizziness and @entity390 ). To minimise such problems, we compared sedation with @entity1363 alone versus @entity1363 with @entity1937 . @entity1 AND METHODS: We initially observed 19 @entity1 undergoing middle-ear surgery under local anaesthesia, as controls. We then sedated a further 40 @entity1 undergoing such surgery, with either @entity1363 or @entity1363 plus @entity1937 . RESULTS: The sedated @entity1 had significantly lower incidences of local anaesthesia injection @entity158 (p < 0.001), intra-operative @entity158 (p < 0.001), intra-operative @entity148 (p < 0.001) and adverse events, compared with the control group. @entity1 sedated with @entity1363 plus @entity1937 reported less intra-operative @entity148 (p = 0.010) and greater post-operative satisfaction with sedation (p = 0.007), compared with those sedated with @entity1363 only. CONCLUSION: @entity1 undergoing middle-ear surgery under local anaesthesia alone frequently report @entity158 , @entity148 and adverse events. However, the majority of our @entity1 who were sedated with @entity1363 satisfactorily overcame @entity158 , @entity148 and adverse events. Results were better still when @entity1363 was accompanied by @entity1937 .
