Haemodynamic responses to intubation, extubation and post‐operative analgesia after intravenous lignocaine in laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgeries: a randomized control study

Srikanth Gujja, Varun Arora, Sravanthi Yelagandula, Chanchal Bhandari, Mittapalli Jeevanbabu
{"title":"Haemodynamic responses to intubation, extubation and post‐operative analgesia after intravenous lignocaine in laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgeries: a randomized control study","authors":"Srikanth Gujja, Varun Arora, Sravanthi Yelagandula, Chanchal Bhandari, Mittapalli Jeevanbabu","doi":"10.22159/ajpcr.2024.v17i4.50550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT: \nObjectives: To evaluate the effect of intravenous lignocaine on haemodynamic responses to intubation, extubation and post‐operative analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgeries. \nMethods: This prospective, randomized, double blinded study was conducted in patients for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery in tertiary care hospital of Tamil Nadu. Group A (n=60) received 0.9% normal saline for perioperative intravenous infusion and Group B (n=60) received preservative free lignocaine 2% (20mg/ml) as intravenous infusion Hemodynamic responses were recorded to intubation, extubation and post‐operative analgesia in both groups. VAS scores and pain free period were also compared. \nResults: Pulse rate (PR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were significantly increased in both the groups during laryngoscopy and intubation, though the rise of both in lignocaine group was significantly less than normal saline group. (p<0.0001)  Similarly, both PR and MAP were significantly increased during extubation in both the groups. (p<0.0001) However, the rise of both the parameters in lignocaine group was significantly less as compared to normal saline group. (p<0.0001) VAS scores in immediate post operative period were better in lignocaine group than normal saline group. The mean pain free period was less than an hour in normal saline group, while it was approximately 4 hours in lignocaine group. (p<0.0001) \nConclusions: This study concluded that i.v infusion of lignocaine had significantly increased the pain free period post operatively. So those who are not affordable for epidural block, lignocaine i.v infusion is better alternative for post operative analgesia.","PeriodicalId":8528,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2024.v17i4.50550","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Objectives: To evaluate the effect of intravenous lignocaine on haemodynamic responses to intubation, extubation and post‐operative analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgeries. Methods: This prospective, randomized, double blinded study was conducted in patients for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery in tertiary care hospital of Tamil Nadu. Group A (n=60) received 0.9% normal saline for perioperative intravenous infusion and Group B (n=60) received preservative free lignocaine 2% (20mg/ml) as intravenous infusion Hemodynamic responses were recorded to intubation, extubation and post‐operative analgesia in both groups. VAS scores and pain free period were also compared. Results: Pulse rate (PR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were significantly increased in both the groups during laryngoscopy and intubation, though the rise of both in lignocaine group was significantly less than normal saline group. (p<0.0001)  Similarly, both PR and MAP were significantly increased during extubation in both the groups. (p<0.0001) However, the rise of both the parameters in lignocaine group was significantly less as compared to normal saline group. (p<0.0001) VAS scores in immediate post operative period were better in lignocaine group than normal saline group. The mean pain free period was less than an hour in normal saline group, while it was approximately 4 hours in lignocaine group. (p<0.0001) Conclusions: This study concluded that i.v infusion of lignocaine had significantly increased the pain free period post operatively. So those who are not affordable for epidural block, lignocaine i.v infusion is better alternative for post operative analgesia.
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
腹腔镜胆囊切除手术中静脉注射木质素后插管、拔管和术后镇痛的血流动力学反应:随机对照研究
摘要:目的:评估静脉注射木质素对腹腔镜胆囊切除手术中插管、拔管和术后镇痛的血流动力学反应的影响:评估腹腔镜胆囊切除术中静脉注射木质素对插管、拔管和术后镇痛的血流动力学反应的影响。方法:这项前瞻性、随机、双盲研究在泰米尔纳德邦三级医院的择期腹腔镜胆囊切除手术患者中进行。A 组(60 人)接受 0.9% 生理盐水围手术期静脉输注,B 组(60 人)接受不含防腐剂的 2% 木质卡因(20 毫克/毫升)静脉输注,记录两组患者插管、拔管和术后镇痛时的血流动力学反应。还比较了 VAS 评分和无痛期。结果在喉镜检查和插管过程中,两组患者的脉搏(PR)和平均动脉压(MAP)均明显升高,但木质素组的升高幅度明显低于生理盐水组(P<0.0001)。(同样,两组患者在拔管时 PR 和 MAP 均明显升高。(p<0.0001)然而,与生理盐水组相比,木质素组两个参数的上升幅度都明显较小。(p<0.0001)木质素组术后即刻的 VAS 评分优于生理盐水组。普通生理盐水组的平均无痛时间不到一小时,而木质素组约为 4 小时。(P<0.0001)结论:本研究得出结论,静脉注射木质素可明显延长术后无痛时间。因此,对于那些无法承受硬膜外阻滞的患者,输注木质素卡因是术后镇痛的更好选择。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
REVERSE-PHASE HIGH-PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION FOR THE QUANTIFICATION OF SUGAMMADEX IN BULK AND PHARMACEUTICAL DOSAGE FORM CLINICAL PROFILE AND PREGNANCY OUTCOMES OF COVID POSITIVE PREGNANT WOMEN IN PHASE I ANDII INFECTION – A COMPARATIVE STUDY EFFECTIVENESS OF WRIST BLOCK FOR SURGERY OF FRACTURE PROXIMAL INTERPHALANGEAL JOINT: A CASE REPORT COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN EARLY AND LATE LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY IN TREATMENT OF ACUTE CHOLECYSTITIS IN BUNDELKHAND REGION POST-OPERATIVE URINARY RETENTION AFTER SPINAL ANESTHESIA IN HERNIA SURGERY: A PROSPECTIVE, COMPARATIVE DOUBLE-BLIND STUDY BETWEEN ROPIVACAINE HEAVY 0.75% AND BUPIVACAINE HEAVY 0.5%
×
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