Comparison Between Two Methods of Patient-Controlled Analgesia Through Intravenous and Thoracic Epidural to Control Pain and Complications After Surgery in Esophageal Cancer Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Q3 Medicine Acta medica Iranica Pub Date : 2023-10-13 DOI:10.18502/acta.v61i6.13833
Maziar Maghsoudloo, Sina Abbassi, Shahram Samadi, Mohammad Taghi Beigmohammadi, Asghar Hajipour, Mahboubeh Atashgahi, Siavash Abbassi, Fariba Badrzadeh, Omid Nabavian
{"title":"Comparison Between Two Methods of Patient-Controlled Analgesia Through Intravenous and Thoracic Epidural to Control Pain and Complications After Surgery in Esophageal Cancer Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial","authors":"Maziar Maghsoudloo, Sina Abbassi, Shahram Samadi, Mohammad Taghi Beigmohammadi, Asghar Hajipour, Mahboubeh Atashgahi, Siavash Abbassi, Fariba Badrzadeh, Omid Nabavian","doi":"10.18502/acta.v61i6.13833","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study was to compare the post-operation analgesic effects of patient-controlled epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for patients who were undergoing esophageal cancer surgery. This was a randomized clinical trial. 80 patients undergone esophagostomy were randomly divided into two groups: 40 patients in the epidural PCA and 40 patients in the intravenous PCA group were evaluated. Post-operation pain score was assessed using the universal pain assessment tool (UPAT) in both groups at 24 and 48 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes included AKI, MI, CVA, pulmonary complications, ICU stay and three months survival. Mean pain scores were similar in the two groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups for rescue treatment, three months’ survival, CVA, MI and AKI. However, ICU stay (P=0.008) and pulmonary complications (P=0.05) were greater in PCIA group. The results indicate that none of the PCEA and PCIA methods have any superiority in terms of pain control and the incidence of analgesic-related side effect complications after surgery in patients undergoing esophagostomy and confirm sufficient analgesia by both.","PeriodicalId":6946,"journal":{"name":"Acta medica Iranica","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta medica Iranica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/acta.v61i6.13833","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the post-operation analgesic effects of patient-controlled epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for patients who were undergoing esophageal cancer surgery. This was a randomized clinical trial. 80 patients undergone esophagostomy were randomly divided into two groups: 40 patients in the epidural PCA and 40 patients in the intravenous PCA group were evaluated. Post-operation pain score was assessed using the universal pain assessment tool (UPAT) in both groups at 24 and 48 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes included AKI, MI, CVA, pulmonary complications, ICU stay and three months survival. Mean pain scores were similar in the two groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups for rescue treatment, three months’ survival, CVA, MI and AKI. However, ICU stay (P=0.008) and pulmonary complications (P=0.05) were greater in PCIA group. The results indicate that none of the PCEA and PCIA methods have any superiority in terms of pain control and the incidence of analgesic-related side effect complications after surgery in patients undergoing esophagostomy and confirm sufficient analgesia by both.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两种患者自行控制的静脉和胸段硬膜外镇痛对食管癌患者术后疼痛和并发症的控制:一项随机对照试验
本研究的目的是比较食管癌手术患者硬膜外自控镇痛和静脉自控镇痛的术后镇痛效果。这是一项随机临床试验。80例食管造口患者随机分为硬膜外PCA组40例和静脉PCA组40例进行评估。采用通用疼痛评估工具(UPAT)于术后24和48小时对两组患者进行术后疼痛评分。次要结局包括AKI、MI、CVA、肺部并发症、ICU住院时间和3个月生存率。两组患者的平均疼痛评分相似(P>0.05)。两组抢救治疗、3个月生存率、CVA、MI、AKI差异无统计学意义。PCIA组ICU住院时间(P=0.008)和肺部并发症(P=0.05)明显高于PCIA组。结果表明,PCEA和PCIA两种方法在食管造口术患者术后疼痛控制及镇痛相关副作用发生率方面均无优势,证实两种方法均有足够的镇痛效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Acta medica Iranica
Acta medica Iranica Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
83
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: ACTA MEDICA IRANICA (p. ISSN 0044-6025; e. ISSN: 1735-9694) is the official journal of the Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The journal is the oldest scientific medical journal of the country, which has been published from 1960 onward in English language. Although it had been published quarterly in the past, the journal has been published bimonthly (6 issues per year) from the year 2004. Acta Medica Iranica it is an international journal with multidisciplinary scope which publishes original research papers, review articles, case reports, and letters to the editor from all over the world. The journal has a wide scope and allows scientists, clinicians, and academic members to publish their original works in this field.
期刊最新文献
Effect of Gestational Hypertension on Neonatal Hemoglobin Level A Review on Novel Methods of Pharmacology Teaching Concerning Iranian Academic Context Transcatheter Closure of a Huge Congenital Coronary-Cameral Fistula With Amplatzer Occluder Erythrocyte Antioxidants and Hexokinase Activity Alterations in CCl4-Induced Cirrhotic Rats Through Naltrexone Treatment Upright Versus Recumbent Position in the Second Stage of Labor for Women With Epidural Analgesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1