A K Konkaev, A A Eltaeva, I B Zabolotskikh, T S Musaeva, L Z Dibvik, V N Kuklin
{"title":"不同类型麻醉后肌内镇痛治疗术后疼痛的有效性和安全性评价:临床前瞻性先导研究。","authors":"A K Konkaev, A A Eltaeva, I B Zabolotskikh, T S Musaeva, L Z Dibvik, V N Kuklin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Efficacy Safety Score (ESS) with \"call-out algorithm\" developed in Kongsberg hospital, Norway was used for the validation. ESS consists of the mathematical sum ofscorefrom: 2 subjective (Visual Analog Scale: VAS at rest and during mobilization) and 4 vital (conscious levels, PONV circulation and respiration status) parameters and ESS > 10 is a \"call-out alarm \"for visit ofpatient by anaesthesiologist. Hourly registration of ESS, mobility degree and amounts of analgetics during the first 8 hours after surgery was recorded in the specially designed IPad program. According to the type ofanaesthesia all patients were allocated in 4 groups: I spinal anaesthesia (SA), II general anesthesia (GA), III peripheral blockade (PB) and IV Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA).</p><p><strong>Results and discussion: </strong>A total of 223 patients were included in the study. Statistically low levels of both VAS and ESS in the first 2-4 postoperative hours were found in SA and PB groups compared to GA and TIVA groups. During 8 post-operative hours, VAS> 3 was recorded in 10.5% of SA, 13.9% in GA, 12.8% in PG and 23.5% in TIVA patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Intramuscular postoperative analgesia was effective in SA, GA and PG groups. More attention of anaesthesiologist must be paid to patients ofter TIVA.</p>","PeriodicalId":7795,"journal":{"name":"Anesteziologiia i reanimatologiia","volume":"61 6","pages":"407-411"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EVALUATION OF EFFICACY AND SAFETY POSTOPERATIVE PAIN MANAGEMENT BY INTRAMUSCULAR ANALGESIA AFTER DIFFERENT TYPES OF ANAESTHESIA: PILOT CLINICAL PROSPECTIVE STUDY.\",\"authors\":\"A K Konkaev, A A Eltaeva, I B Zabolotskikh, T S Musaeva, L Z Dibvik, V N Kuklin\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Efficacy Safety Score (ESS) with \\\"call-out algorithm\\\" developed in Kongsberg hospital, Norway was used for the validation. ESS consists of the mathematical sum ofscorefrom: 2 subjective (Visual Analog Scale: VAS at rest and during mobilization) and 4 vital (conscious levels, PONV circulation and respiration status) parameters and ESS > 10 is a \\\"call-out alarm \\\"for visit ofpatient by anaesthesiologist. Hourly registration of ESS, mobility degree and amounts of analgetics during the first 8 hours after surgery was recorded in the specially designed IPad program. According to the type ofanaesthesia all patients were allocated in 4 groups: I spinal anaesthesia (SA), II general anesthesia (GA), III peripheral blockade (PB) and IV Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA).</p><p><strong>Results and discussion: </strong>A total of 223 patients were included in the study. Statistically low levels of both VAS and ESS in the first 2-4 postoperative hours were found in SA and PB groups compared to GA and TIVA groups. During 8 post-operative hours, VAS> 3 was recorded in 10.5% of SA, 13.9% in GA, 12.8% in PG and 23.5% in TIVA patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Intramuscular postoperative analgesia was effective in SA, GA and PG groups. More attention of anaesthesiologist must be paid to patients ofter TIVA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7795,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesteziologiia i reanimatologiia\",\"volume\":\"61 6\",\"pages\":\"407-411\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesteziologiia i reanimatologiia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesteziologiia i reanimatologiia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
EVALUATION OF EFFICACY AND SAFETY POSTOPERATIVE PAIN MANAGEMENT BY INTRAMUSCULAR ANALGESIA AFTER DIFFERENT TYPES OF ANAESTHESIA: PILOT CLINICAL PROSPECTIVE STUDY.
Material and methods: Efficacy Safety Score (ESS) with "call-out algorithm" developed in Kongsberg hospital, Norway was used for the validation. ESS consists of the mathematical sum ofscorefrom: 2 subjective (Visual Analog Scale: VAS at rest and during mobilization) and 4 vital (conscious levels, PONV circulation and respiration status) parameters and ESS > 10 is a "call-out alarm "for visit ofpatient by anaesthesiologist. Hourly registration of ESS, mobility degree and amounts of analgetics during the first 8 hours after surgery was recorded in the specially designed IPad program. According to the type ofanaesthesia all patients were allocated in 4 groups: I spinal anaesthesia (SA), II general anesthesia (GA), III peripheral blockade (PB) and IV Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA).
Results and discussion: A total of 223 patients were included in the study. Statistically low levels of both VAS and ESS in the first 2-4 postoperative hours were found in SA and PB groups compared to GA and TIVA groups. During 8 post-operative hours, VAS> 3 was recorded in 10.5% of SA, 13.9% in GA, 12.8% in PG and 23.5% in TIVA patients.
Conclusions: Intramuscular postoperative analgesia was effective in SA, GA and PG groups. More attention of anaesthesiologist must be paid to patients ofter TIVA.