Evaluation of the analgesic efficacy of a low dose of intrathecal morphine in laparoscopic abdominal surgery: A randomised control trial.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Journal of Minimal Access Surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.4103/jmas.jmas_141_24
Lakshmi Kumar, Ramya Anantharaman, Dimple Elina Thomas, Anjaly S Nair, Anandajith P Kartha, Karthik Kumar
{"title":"Evaluation of the analgesic efficacy of a low dose of intrathecal morphine in laparoscopic abdominal surgery: A randomised control trial.","authors":"Lakshmi Kumar, Ramya Anantharaman, Dimple Elina Thomas, Anjaly S Nair, Anandajith P Kartha, Karthik Kumar","doi":"10.4103/jmas.jmas_141_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Intrathecal opioid is an analgesic option in laparoscopic surgery. We assessed primarily the intraoperative opioid requirement amongst patients receiving intrathecal morphine (ITM) (Group M) versus standard care (Group C) for abdominal surgery. The secondary outcomes were intraoperative haemodynamic changes, extubation on table and pain scores in the intensive care unit (ICU) at 6 th hourly intervals for 24 h postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery were randomised into Group M ( n = 30) that received ITM at 2 μg/kg while Group C ( n = 30) was control. A rise in mean arterial pressure > 20% from baseline was treated sequentially with 0.3 mg /kg propofol and 0.5 μg/kg fentanyl intravenously (IV). Pain management in the ICU included paracetamol 1G IV 8 th hourly for all patients, while nefopam 20 mg and fentanyl 0.5 μg/kg IV were the second and third tiers of pain management.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Intraoperatively, 10 patients in Group M versus 26 in Group C needed additional fentanyl ( P < 0.001) and 15 versus 26 patients needed additional propofol ( P = 0.0024). Pain scores were superior in Group M at all time points in the ICU and at ambulation and during incentive spirometry. Thirteen patients in Group C versus 3 in Group M needed nefopam at the time of shifting to the ICU ( P = 0.004) and 10 patients versus 1 at 8 h in the ICU ( P = 0.003) while pain management at 16 h and 24 h was comparable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pre-operative ITM at 2 μg/kg reduces intraoperative opioid requirement and improves analgesia 24 h postoperatively amongst patients undergoing major laparoscopic abdominal surgery without delay in extubation or changes in haemodynamics.</p>","PeriodicalId":48905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_141_24","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Intrathecal opioid is an analgesic option in laparoscopic surgery. We assessed primarily the intraoperative opioid requirement amongst patients receiving intrathecal morphine (ITM) (Group M) versus standard care (Group C) for abdominal surgery. The secondary outcomes were intraoperative haemodynamic changes, extubation on table and pain scores in the intensive care unit (ICU) at 6 th hourly intervals for 24 h postoperatively.

Patients and methods: Patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery were randomised into Group M ( n = 30) that received ITM at 2 μg/kg while Group C ( n = 30) was control. A rise in mean arterial pressure > 20% from baseline was treated sequentially with 0.3 mg /kg propofol and 0.5 μg/kg fentanyl intravenously (IV). Pain management in the ICU included paracetamol 1G IV 8 th hourly for all patients, while nefopam 20 mg and fentanyl 0.5 μg/kg IV were the second and third tiers of pain management.

Results: Intraoperatively, 10 patients in Group M versus 26 in Group C needed additional fentanyl ( P < 0.001) and 15 versus 26 patients needed additional propofol ( P = 0.0024). Pain scores were superior in Group M at all time points in the ICU and at ambulation and during incentive spirometry. Thirteen patients in Group C versus 3 in Group M needed nefopam at the time of shifting to the ICU ( P = 0.004) and 10 patients versus 1 at 8 h in the ICU ( P = 0.003) while pain management at 16 h and 24 h was comparable.

Conclusion: Pre-operative ITM at 2 μg/kg reduces intraoperative opioid requirement and improves analgesia 24 h postoperatively amongst patients undergoing major laparoscopic abdominal surgery without delay in extubation or changes in haemodynamics.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
151
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Minimal Access Surgery (JMAS), the official publication of Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo Surgeons, launched in early 2005. The JMAS, a quarterly publication, is the first English-language journal from India, as also from this part of the world, dedicated to Minimal Access Surgery. The JMAS boasts an outstanding editorial board comprising of Indian and international experts in the field.
期刊最新文献
An institutional approach to thick wall gall bladder and our experience of 5450 gallstone disease. Comparison of modified tumescent and conventional laparoscopic transabdominal pre-peritoneal repair in the patients of inguinal hernia: A randomised control trial. Computed tomography roadmap for post-operative fundoplication imaging with a novel structured reporting checklist. Effect of scrotal support application on seroma formation following minimal access surgery for inguinal hernia: A randomised controlled trial. Evaluation of the analgesic efficacy of a low dose of intrathecal morphine in laparoscopic abdominal surgery: A randomised control 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