比较腹腔注射右美托咪定和咪达唑仑作为罗哌卡因的辅助药物为接受腹腔内手术的儿童术后止痛:随机对照试验。

Q3 Medicine Asian journal of anesthesiology Pub Date : 2023-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.6859/aja.202306_61(2).0006
Arunima M Mohan, Ankur Sharma, Shilpa Goyal, Nikhil Kothari, Raksha Vyas, Akhil Dhanesh Goel, Priyanka Sethi, Kamlesh Kumari, Pradeep Bhatia
{"title":"比较腹腔注射右美托咪定和咪达唑仑作为罗哌卡因的辅助药物为接受腹腔内手术的儿童术后止痛:随机对照试验。","authors":"Arunima M Mohan, Ankur Sharma, Shilpa Goyal, Nikhil Kothari, Raksha Vyas, Akhil Dhanesh Goel, Priyanka Sethi, Kamlesh Kumari, Pradeep Bhatia","doi":"10.6859/aja.202306_61(2).0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We explored the analgesic efficacy of two non-opioid adjuvants (midazolam and dexmedetomidine) with ropivacaine in children undergoing infraumbilical surgeries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this parallel group randomized controlled trial, 135 children aged between 2 and 8 years were recruited. Children were randomly allocated to one of three groups: RD received 1 mL/kg of ropivacaine (0.2%) with dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg, RM received 1 mL/kg of ropivacaine (0.2%) with midazolam 30 µg/kg, and R received 1 mL/kg of ropivacaine (0.2%) with 1 mL normal saline. The primary outcome of the present study was to determine the duration of postoperative analgesia. Secondary outcomes were assessing postoperative face, leg, activity, cry, consolability (FLACC) pain score, rescue analgesics, hemodynamics, sedation scores, and adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analgesia duration was significantly prolonged in the RD and RM group (600.0 [480.0-720.0] minutes and 600.0 [480.0-720.0] minutes, respectively) compared to the R group 360.0 (300.0-480.0) minutes (P < 0.001). The FLACC score was comparatively higher in the R group compared to the RD and RM groups postoperatively. Time for the first rescue analgesia was more prolonged in RD and RM groups when compared with the R group. Postoperative sedation was higher in the RM group up to 120 minutes postoperatively compared to the RD and R groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The combination of dexmedetomidine or midazolam with local anesthetics significantly increases the analgesia duration while minimizing adverse effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":8482,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of anesthesiology","volume":"61 2","pages":"89-101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Caudal Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam as an Adjuvant to Ropivacaine for Postoperative Pain Relief in Children Undergoing Infra-Umbilical Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Arunima M Mohan, Ankur Sharma, Shilpa Goyal, Nikhil Kothari, Raksha Vyas, Akhil Dhanesh Goel, Priyanka Sethi, Kamlesh Kumari, Pradeep Bhatia\",\"doi\":\"10.6859/aja.202306_61(2).0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We explored the analgesic efficacy of two non-opioid adjuvants (midazolam and dexmedetomidine) with ropivacaine in children undergoing infraumbilical surgeries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this parallel group randomized controlled trial, 135 children aged between 2 and 8 years were recruited. Children were randomly allocated to one of three groups: RD received 1 mL/kg of ropivacaine (0.2%) with dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg, RM received 1 mL/kg of ropivacaine (0.2%) with midazolam 30 µg/kg, and R received 1 mL/kg of ropivacaine (0.2%) with 1 mL normal saline. The primary outcome of the present study was to determine the duration of postoperative analgesia. Secondary outcomes were assessing postoperative face, leg, activity, cry, consolability (FLACC) pain score, rescue analgesics, hemodynamics, sedation scores, and adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analgesia duration was significantly prolonged in the RD and RM group (600.0 [480.0-720.0] minutes and 600.0 [480.0-720.0] minutes, respectively) compared to the R group 360.0 (300.0-480.0) minutes (P < 0.001). The FLACC score was comparatively higher in the R group compared to the RD and RM groups postoperatively. Time for the first rescue analgesia was more prolonged in RD and RM groups when compared with the R group. Postoperative sedation was higher in the RM group up to 120 minutes postoperatively compared to the RD and R groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The combination of dexmedetomidine or midazolam with local anesthetics significantly increases the analgesia duration while minimizing adverse effects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8482,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian journal of anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"61 2\",\"pages\":\"89-101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian journal of anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6859/aja.202306_61(2).0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6859/aja.202306_61(2).0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:我们探讨了两种非阿片类辅助药物(咪达唑仑和右美托咪定)与罗哌卡因配合使用对接受脐下手术的儿童的镇痛效果:在这项平行分组随机对照试验中,共招募了 135 名 2 至 8 岁的儿童。儿童被随机分配到三组中的一组:RD组接受1毫升/千克罗哌卡因(0.2%)和1微克/千克右美托咪定;RM组接受1毫升/千克罗哌卡因(0.2%)和30微克/千克咪达唑仑;R组接受1毫升/千克罗哌卡因(0.2%)和1毫升生理盐水。本研究的主要结果是确定术后镇痛的持续时间。次要结果是评估术后面部、腿部、活动、哭泣、可安慰性(FLACC)疼痛评分、抢救镇痛药、血液动力学、镇静评分和不良反应:与 R 组的 360.0 (300.0-480.0) 分钟相比,RD 组和 RM 组的镇痛时间明显延长(分别为 600.0 [480.0-720.0] 分钟和 600.0 [480.0-720.0] 分钟)(P < 0.001)。与 RD 组和 RM 组相比,R 组术后的 FLACC 评分更高。与 R 组相比,RD 组和 RM 组首次镇痛抢救时间更长。与 RD 组和 R 组相比,RM 组术后 120 分钟内的镇静时间更长:结论:右美托咪定或咪达唑仑与局麻药联合使用可显著延长镇痛时间,同时将不良反应降至最低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of Caudal Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam as an Adjuvant to Ropivacaine for Postoperative Pain Relief in Children Undergoing Infra-Umbilical Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: We explored the analgesic efficacy of two non-opioid adjuvants (midazolam and dexmedetomidine) with ropivacaine in children undergoing infraumbilical surgeries.

Methods: In this parallel group randomized controlled trial, 135 children aged between 2 and 8 years were recruited. Children were randomly allocated to one of three groups: RD received 1 mL/kg of ropivacaine (0.2%) with dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg, RM received 1 mL/kg of ropivacaine (0.2%) with midazolam 30 µg/kg, and R received 1 mL/kg of ropivacaine (0.2%) with 1 mL normal saline. The primary outcome of the present study was to determine the duration of postoperative analgesia. Secondary outcomes were assessing postoperative face, leg, activity, cry, consolability (FLACC) pain score, rescue analgesics, hemodynamics, sedation scores, and adverse effects.

Results: The analgesia duration was significantly prolonged in the RD and RM group (600.0 [480.0-720.0] minutes and 600.0 [480.0-720.0] minutes, respectively) compared to the R group 360.0 (300.0-480.0) minutes (P < 0.001). The FLACC score was comparatively higher in the R group compared to the RD and RM groups postoperatively. Time for the first rescue analgesia was more prolonged in RD and RM groups when compared with the R group. Postoperative sedation was higher in the RM group up to 120 minutes postoperatively compared to the RD and R groups.

Conclusion: The combination of dexmedetomidine or midazolam with local anesthetics significantly increases the analgesia duration while minimizing adverse effects.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asian journal of anesthesiology
Asian journal of anesthesiology Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Asian Journal of Anesthesiology (AJA), launched in 1962, is the official and peer-reviewed publication of the Taiwan Society of Anaesthesiologists. It is published quarterly (March/June/September/December) by Airiti and indexed in EMBASE, Medline, Scopus, ScienceDirect, SIIC Data Bases. AJA accepts submissions from around the world. AJA is the premier open access journal in the field of anaesthesia and its related disciplines of critical care and pain in Asia. The number of Chinese anaesthesiologists has reached more than 60,000 and is still growing. The journal aims to disseminate anaesthesiology research and services for the Chinese community and is now the main anaesthesiology journal for Chinese societies located in Taiwan, Mainland China, Hong Kong and Singapore. AJAcaters to clinicians of all relevant specialties and biomedical scientists working in the areas of anesthesia, critical care medicine and pain management, as well as other related fields (pharmacology, pathology molecular biology, etc). AJA''s editorial team is composed of local and regional experts in the field as well as many leading international experts. Article types accepted include review articles, research papers, short communication, correspondence and images.
期刊最新文献
Four Approaches of Styletubation for Handling the Orotracheal Intubation: A Technical Tip. Risk of Dementia After Uterus or Prostate Resection: 17-Year Follow-Up of a Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study. Comparison of Inter-Incisor Distance as a Predictor of Difficult Intubation in Men and Women-A Prospective Observational Study. Deteriorating Hypotension and Trepopnea During Left Lateral Decubitus Position Before Spinal Anesthesia. Practice Algorithm of Rotational Thromboelastometry-Guided (ROTEM-Guided) Bleeding Management in Liver Transplantation.
×
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