口服加巴喷丁和普瑞巴林作为辅助药物对上肢矫形手术后疼痛控制的影响:双盲平行随机临床试验研究》。

IF 1.6 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anesthesiology Research and Practice Pub Date : 2024-05-06 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2024/7193599
Lida Nouri, Rana Roshanfekr, Azam Biderafsh, Reza Pakzad, Hamed Azadi
{"title":"口服加巴喷丁和普瑞巴林作为辅助药物对上肢矫形手术后疼痛控制的影响:双盲平行随机临床试验研究》。","authors":"Lida Nouri, Rana Roshanfekr, Azam Biderafsh, Reza Pakzad, Hamed Azadi","doi":"10.1155/2024/7193599","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effects of oral gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) in pain control after orthopedic surgery on the upper limb.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this double-blind randomized clinical trial study, 80 patients who were the candidates for elective orthopedic surgery on one of the parts of the upper limb were divided into two groups using balance-block randomization. For the first group, a 150 mg capsule of PGB (one hour before the surgery) and for the second group, a 300 mg capsule of GBP (two hours before the surgery) were prescribed. Patients were subjected to standard monitoring at the beginning and during surgery. The pain scores were evaluated at before surgery, in PACU (postanesthesia care unit), and 6 and 12 hours after the surgery by VAS (visual analog scale).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this study, 37 subjects were allocated to each group. The participation rate was 92.5%. The mean with 95% confidence interval (CI) of pain scores over 4 times in the PGB group was 4.03 (3.25-4.79), 3.76 (3.02-4.49), 3.65 (3.06-4.23), and 3.41 (2.88-3.93) and in the GBP group was 4.08 (3.33-4.83), 2.78 (2.11-4.45), 2.3 (2.05-2.54), and 2 (1.51-2.50), respectively. The within-group comparisons showed a significant decrease in the pain score over time (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Also, the between-group comparison showed significant differences between the two groups in terms of pain score (<i>P</i> < 0.001). In the end, results showed that there is a significant interaction between time and intervention for pain score (<i>P</i>=0.042).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although two medicines led to a reduction in the pain score, but the rate reduction in the PGB group was significantly more than that in the GBP group. This trial is registered with IRCT20211013052759N1.</p>","PeriodicalId":7834,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","volume":"2024 ","pages":"7193599"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11090678/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effect of Oral Gabapentin and Pregabalin as a Prodrug in Pain Control after Orthopedic Surgery on the Upper Limb: A Double-Blind Parallel Randomized Clinical Trial Study.\",\"authors\":\"Lida Nouri, Rana Roshanfekr, Azam Biderafsh, Reza Pakzad, Hamed Azadi\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2024/7193599\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effects of oral gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) in pain control after orthopedic surgery on the upper limb.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this double-blind randomized clinical trial study, 80 patients who were the candidates for elective orthopedic surgery on one of the parts of the upper limb were divided into two groups using balance-block randomization. For the first group, a 150 mg capsule of PGB (one hour before the surgery) and for the second group, a 300 mg capsule of GBP (two hours before the surgery) were prescribed. Patients were subjected to standard monitoring at the beginning and during surgery. The pain scores were evaluated at before surgery, in PACU (postanesthesia care unit), and 6 and 12 hours after the surgery by VAS (visual analog scale).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this study, 37 subjects were allocated to each group. The participation rate was 92.5%. The mean with 95% confidence interval (CI) of pain scores over 4 times in the PGB group was 4.03 (3.25-4.79), 3.76 (3.02-4.49), 3.65 (3.06-4.23), and 3.41 (2.88-3.93) and in the GBP group was 4.08 (3.33-4.83), 2.78 (2.11-4.45), 2.3 (2.05-2.54), and 2 (1.51-2.50), respectively. The within-group comparisons showed a significant decrease in the pain score over time (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Also, the between-group comparison showed significant differences between the two groups in terms of pain score (<i>P</i> < 0.001). In the end, results showed that there is a significant interaction between time and intervention for pain score (<i>P</i>=0.042).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although two medicines led to a reduction in the pain score, but the rate reduction in the PGB group was significantly more than that in the GBP group. This trial is registered with IRCT20211013052759N1.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesiology Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\"2024 \",\"pages\":\"7193599\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11090678/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesiology Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/7193599\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/7193599","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较口服加巴喷丁(GBP)和普瑞巴林(PGB)对上肢矫形手术后疼痛控制的效果:在这项双盲随机临床试验研究中,采用平衡块随机法将80名择期接受上肢某部位矫形手术的患者分为两组。第一组患者在手术前一小时服用 150 毫克的 PGB 胶囊,第二组患者在手术前两小时服用 300 毫克的 GBP 胶囊。患者在手术开始和手术过程中均接受标准监测。在手术前、PACU(麻醉后护理病房)、手术后 6 小时和 12 小时,通过 VAS(视觉模拟量表)对疼痛评分进行评估:在这项研究中,每组有 37 名受试者。参与率为 92.5%。PGB 组 4 次疼痛评分的平均值和 95% 置信区间(CI)分别为 4.03(3.25-4.79)、3.76(3.02-4.49)、3.65(3.06-4.23)和 3.41(2.88-3.93),GBP 组分别为 4.08(3.33-4.83)、2.78(2.11-4.45)、2.3(2.05-2.54)和 2(1.51-2.50)。组内比较显示,随着时间的推移,疼痛评分显著下降(P < 0.001)。此外,组间比较显示,两组患者的疼痛评分差异显著(P < 0.001)。最后,结果显示,时间和干预对疼痛评分有显著的交互作用(P=0.042):结论:虽然两种药物都能降低疼痛评分,但 PGB 组的降低率明显高于 GBP 组。本试验注册号为 IRCT20211013052759N1。
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
The Effect of Oral Gabapentin and Pregabalin as a Prodrug in Pain Control after Orthopedic Surgery on the Upper Limb: A Double-Blind Parallel Randomized Clinical Trial Study.

Objective: To compare the effects of oral gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) in pain control after orthopedic surgery on the upper limb.

Methods: In this double-blind randomized clinical trial study, 80 patients who were the candidates for elective orthopedic surgery on one of the parts of the upper limb were divided into two groups using balance-block randomization. For the first group, a 150 mg capsule of PGB (one hour before the surgery) and for the second group, a 300 mg capsule of GBP (two hours before the surgery) were prescribed. Patients were subjected to standard monitoring at the beginning and during surgery. The pain scores were evaluated at before surgery, in PACU (postanesthesia care unit), and 6 and 12 hours after the surgery by VAS (visual analog scale).

Results: In this study, 37 subjects were allocated to each group. The participation rate was 92.5%. The mean with 95% confidence interval (CI) of pain scores over 4 times in the PGB group was 4.03 (3.25-4.79), 3.76 (3.02-4.49), 3.65 (3.06-4.23), and 3.41 (2.88-3.93) and in the GBP group was 4.08 (3.33-4.83), 2.78 (2.11-4.45), 2.3 (2.05-2.54), and 2 (1.51-2.50), respectively. The within-group comparisons showed a significant decrease in the pain score over time (P < 0.001). Also, the between-group comparison showed significant differences between the two groups in terms of pain score (P < 0.001). In the end, results showed that there is a significant interaction between time and intervention for pain score (P=0.042).

Conclusion: Although two medicines led to a reduction in the pain score, but the rate reduction in the PGB group was significantly more than that in the GBP group. This trial is registered with IRCT20211013052759N1.

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
相关文献
二甲双胍通过HDAC6和FoxO3a转录调控肌肉生长抑制素诱导肌肉萎缩
IF 8.9 1区 医学Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and MusclePub Date : 2021-11-02 DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12833
Min Ju Kang, Ji Wook Moon, Jung Ok Lee, Ji Hae Kim, Eun Jeong Jung, Su Jin Kim, Joo Yeon Oh, Sang Woo Wu, Pu Reum Lee, Sun Hwa Park, Hyeon Soo Kim
具有疾病敏感单倍型的非亲属供体脐带血移植后的1型糖尿病
IF 3.2 3区 医学Journal of Diabetes InvestigationPub Date : 2022-11-02 DOI: 10.1111/jdi.13939
Kensuke Matsumoto, Taisuke Matsuyama, Ritsu Sumiyoshi, Matsuo Takuji, Tadashi Yamamoto, Ryosuke Shirasaki, Haruko Tashiro
封面:蛋白质组学分析确定IRSp53和fastin是PRV输出和直接细胞-细胞传播的关键
IF 3.4 4区 生物学ProteomicsPub Date : 2019-12-02 DOI: 10.1002/pmic.201970201
Fei-Long Yu, Huan Miao, Jinjin Xia, Fan Jia, Huadong Wang, Fuqiang Xu, Lin Guo
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Laryngoscope-Guided Insertion and Standard Blind Insertion of the Laryngeal Mask Airway: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Impact of Diclofenac Suppositories on Post-Cesarean Section Pain: A Systematic Literature Review. A Comparison of the Effect of Two Doses of Oral Melatonin as Premedication on Orientation Score, Induction Compliance, and Emergency Agitation of Children Undergoing Elective Surgeries: A Double-Blinded Randomized Trial. Study the Effect of Intraperitoneal Dexamethasone, Dexmedetomidine, and Their Combination on PONV After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Triple-Blind Trial. Bispectral Index and Surgical Space Conditions in Day Surgery Benign Gynecological Laparoscopies: A Double-Blinded 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