Postoperative analgesia and antiemetic efficacy after intrathecal neostigmine in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy during spinal anesthesia.

Regional anesthesia Pub Date : 1997-11-01
G R Lauretti, A L Mattos, J M Gomes, N L Pereira
{"title":"Postoperative analgesia and antiemetic efficacy after intrathecal neostigmine in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy during spinal anesthesia.","authors":"G R Lauretti,&nbsp;A L Mattos,&nbsp;J M Gomes,&nbsp;N L Pereira","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Postoperative analgesia and antiemetic efficacy after intrathecal neostigmine were investigated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 100 patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The patients were assigned to one of five groups (n = 20), and received intravenous prior to the spinal block the antiemetic test drug (except propofol) and 0.05 mg/kg midazolam. The control group (group C), the neostigmine group (group N), and the propofol group (group P) received saline as the test drug. The droperidol group (group D) received 0.5 mg intravenous droperidol, and the metoclopramide group (group M) 10 mg intravenous metoclopramide. Group P was single-blinded and had an intravenous continuous propofol infusion (2-4 mg/kg/h) turned on 10 minutes after the spinal injection. The intrathecal drugs administered were 20 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine (0.5%) associated with either 100 microg neostigmine or saline (for group C). Nausea, emetic episodes, and the need for rescue medication were recorded for the first 24 hours postoperative and scored by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Time-to-first-rescue medication and rescue medications in 24 hours were similar among the groups (P = .2917 and P = .8780, respectively). Intrathecal 100 microg neostigmine was associated with a high incidence of nausea and vomiting perioperative, leading to a high consumption of antiemetics (P < .002). None of the antiemetic test drugs were effective in preventing nausea and vomiting after 100 microg neostigmine.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Intrathecal neostigmine (100 microg) was ineffective for postoperative analgesia after abdominal hysterectomy due to side effects of nausea and vomiting.</p>","PeriodicalId":77347,"journal":{"name":"Regional anesthesia","volume":"22 6","pages":"527-33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

Background and objectives: Postoperative analgesia and antiemetic efficacy after intrathecal neostigmine were investigated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 100 patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy.

Methods: The patients were assigned to one of five groups (n = 20), and received intravenous prior to the spinal block the antiemetic test drug (except propofol) and 0.05 mg/kg midazolam. The control group (group C), the neostigmine group (group N), and the propofol group (group P) received saline as the test drug. The droperidol group (group D) received 0.5 mg intravenous droperidol, and the metoclopramide group (group M) 10 mg intravenous metoclopramide. Group P was single-blinded and had an intravenous continuous propofol infusion (2-4 mg/kg/h) turned on 10 minutes after the spinal injection. The intrathecal drugs administered were 20 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine (0.5%) associated with either 100 microg neostigmine or saline (for group C). Nausea, emetic episodes, and the need for rescue medication were recorded for the first 24 hours postoperative and scored by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS).

Results: Time-to-first-rescue medication and rescue medications in 24 hours were similar among the groups (P = .2917 and P = .8780, respectively). Intrathecal 100 microg neostigmine was associated with a high incidence of nausea and vomiting perioperative, leading to a high consumption of antiemetics (P < .002). None of the antiemetic test drugs were effective in preventing nausea and vomiting after 100 microg neostigmine.

Conclusions: Intrathecal neostigmine (100 microg) was ineffective for postoperative analgesia after abdominal hysterectomy due to side effects of nausea and vomiting.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脊髓麻醉下腹式子宫切除术患者鞘内新斯的明术后镇痛及止吐效果。
背景与目的:在一项随机、双盲、安慰剂对照试验中,研究了100例腹部子宫切除术患者鞘内新斯的明术后镇痛和止吐效果。方法:将患者分为5组(n = 20),在脊髓阻滞前静脉注射止吐试验药物(异丙酚除外)和0.05 mg/kg咪达唑仑。对照组(C组)、新斯的明组(N组)、异丙酚组(P组)以生理盐水作为试验药物。哌啶醇组(D组)静脉滴注哌啶醇0.5 mg,甲氧氯普胺组(M组)静脉滴注甲氧氯普胺10 mg。P组为单盲,脊髓注射后10分钟开始静脉持续输注异丙酚(2-4 mg/kg/h)。鞘内给药为20mg高压布比卡因(0.5%),同时给予100微克新斯的明或生理盐水(C组)。术后前24小时记录恶心、呕吐和需要抢救药物的情况,并通过视觉模拟评分(VAS)进行评分。结果:两组患者首次抢救用药时间和24h抢救用药时间相似(P = 0.2917、P = 0.8780)。鞘内100微克新斯的明与围手术期恶心和呕吐的高发相关,导致止吐药的高消耗(P < 0.002)。所有止吐试验药物均不能有效预防100微克新斯的明后的恶心和呕吐。结论:鞘内新斯的明(100 μ g)用于腹式子宫切除术后的镇痛无效,副作用为恶心、呕吐。
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
Not everything that can be done should be done Thoracic combined spinal epidural anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a geriatric patient with ischemic heart disease and renal insufficiency Comparative evaluation of continuous intercostal nerve block or epidural analgesia on the rate of respiratory complications, intensive care unit, and hospital stay following traumatic rib fractures: a retrospective review Does epidural analgesia during labor affect the incidence of cesarean delivery? Optimizing spinal anesthesia for ambulatory surgery.
×
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