Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

KMJ : Kosin Medical Journal

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Author index

Page Path
HOME > Browse articles > Author index
Search
Ju Deok Kim 3 Articles
Anaphylaxis occurred immediately after prophylactic antibiotics injection with negative intradermal skin test during laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Hyung Joo Jeong, Hsi Chiang Kung, Tae Woo Park, Dong Hee Kang, Yu Som Shin, Ju Deok Kim
Kosin Med J. 2018;33(2):245-251.   Published online December 31, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7180/kmj.2018.33.2.245
  • 325 View
  • 0 Download
Abstract PDFPubReader   ePub   CrossRef-TDMCrossref - TDM

Prophylactic antibiotics that are used to prevent post-operative infection can commonly cause anaphylactic reactions during anesthesia. It is therefore necessary to perform a skin test before antibiotics are administered in order to diagnose and prevent anaphylactic reactions. However, the results of the antibiotic skin test can differ according to the drug, dose, and reagent concentration.

We report a case of anaphylactic shock with bronchospasm and cardiovascular collapse immediately following administration of the prophylactic cefazedone after induction of general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Hemodynamic Effects of Co-administration of Midazolam during Anesthesia Induction with Propofol and Remifentanil in Hypertensive Patients
Ju Deok Kim, Joo Won Kim, His Chiang Kung, Jun Hong Kang, Hye Young Shin, Doo Sik Kim, Sie Jeong Ryu, Kyung Han Kim
Kosin Med J. 2017;32(1):36-46.   Published online June 30, 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7180/kmj.2017.32.1.36
  • 363 View
  • 2 Download
Abstract PDFPubReader   ePub   CrossRef-TDMCrossref - TDM
Objectives

Propofol, midazolam and remifentanil are commonly used for clinical anesthesia. We compared the effects of midazolam-propofol-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil on hemodynamic responses during anesthesia induction in hypertensive patients.

Methods

Seventy-six hypertensive patients with ASA II-III were assigned to receive midazolam-propofol (group MP; n = 38) or propofol (group P; n = 38). Anesthesia was induced with midazolam 0.03 mg/kg (group MP) or saline 0.03 ml/kg (group P). After two minutes, propofol 1.0 mg/kg (group MP) or 1.5 mg/kg (group P) i.v. bolus was administered. Simultaneously, 4 ng/ml of remifentanil target controlled infusion (TCI) was administered in both groups. Anesthesia was maintained using sevoflurane and 2 ng/ml of remifentanil TCI. Systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure (SBP, DBP, and MBP) and heart rate (HR) were measured before induction, 2 min after midazolam or normal saline, 2 min after propofol, 1 min after rocuronium, and immediately, 1 min, 2 min, and 3 min after intubation.

Results

SBP, DBP, and MBP decreased after propofol administration and increased immediately after intubation in both groups (P < 0.05). After intubation, SBP, DBP, and MBP decreased more than baseline values in either group. Although the overall BP of Group P was lower than that of Group MP, there were no significant differences except for SBP at 2min after intubation (P < 0.05). HR was no significant difference in either group.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that midazolam-propofol-remifentanil has similar hemodynamic effect with propofol-remifentanil during anesthesia induction in hypertensive patients.

A Comparison of the Recovery Characteristics between Propofol-remifentil and Sevoflurane-remifentail Anesthesia for Total Thyroidectomy
Dong Hee Kang, Jeong Gil Lee, Hyeong Ju Jung, Ju Deok Kim, Soo Bong Yu, Si Jeong Ryu, Gyeong Han Kim, Doo Sik Kim
Kosin Med J. 2013;28(2):137-143.   Published online January 19, 2013
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7180/kmj.2013.28.2.137
  • 339 View
  • 1 Download
  • 1 Citations
Abstract PDFPubReader   ePub   CrossRef-TDMCrossref - TDM
Objectives

This study was investigated the recovery characteristics of propofol-remifentanil and sevoflurane-remifentanil anesthesia for total thyroidectomy

Methods

Eighty patients in ASA physical status 1 and 2 scheduled for total thyroidectomy were allocated randomly to either group P (n = 40) or group S (n = 40). Anesthesia was maintained with remifentanil effect site concentration (Ce) 1-3 ng/mL and propofol Ce 2-4 μ g/mL in the group P, and was maintained with remifentanil Ce 1-3 ng/mL and sevoflurane 1.5-2% in the group S. Blood pressure, heart rate, and bispectral (BIS) index were measured during perioperative period. The times from discontinuance of anesthetic agent to eye opening, to extubation, and to stating name were measured. Postoperative complications were evaluated.

Objectives

This study was investigated the recovery characteristics of propofol-remifentanil and sevoflurane-remifentanil anesthesia for total thyroidectomy

Methods

Eighty patients in ASA physical status 1 and 2 scheduled for total thyroidectomy were allocated randomly to either group P (n = 40) or group S (n = 40). Anesthesia was maintained with remifentanil effect site concentration (Ce) 1-3 ng/mL and propofol Ce 2-4 μ g/mL in the group P, and was maintained with remifentanil Ce 1-3 ng/mL and sevoflurane 1.5-2% in the group S. Blood pressure, heart rate, and bispectral (BIS) index were measured during perioperative period. The times from discontinuance of anesthetic agent to eye opening, to extubation, and to stating name were measured. Postoperative complications were evaluated.

Results

There were no significant differences between group P and S on the blood pressure, heart rate, and recovery time. BIS index of group P showed lower than that of group S during operation (P < 0.05). The incidences of side effects were similar in the two groups, though the incidence of nausea was higher in the group S (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Propofol-remifentanil anesthesia was more advantageous than sevoflurane-remifentanil anesthesia for thyroidectomy in view of side effect incidences.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Comparison of Postoperative Pain and Nausea and Vomiting between Desflurane and Desflurane-remifentanil Anesthesia for Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery
    In-Suk Lee, Yun-Mi Kim
    Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.2015; 21(1): 1.     CrossRef

KMJ : Kosin Medical Journal