腹腔镜术后患者自控机械式镇痛泵与传统非机械式镇痛泵在患者优化背景输注模式下的疗效比较

N. Kim, Sul Ki Park
{"title":"腹腔镜术后患者自控机械式镇痛泵与传统非机械式镇痛泵在患者优化背景输注模式下的疗效比较","authors":"N. Kim, Sul Ki Park","doi":"10.15746/sms.22.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and side effects of the mechanical patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), pumps operated in patient optimizing background infusion (POBI) mode, compared with the conventional nonmechanical PCA after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.Methods: In total, 211 patients were randomized to nonmechanical pump (n=106, group A) or mechanical pump (n=105, group P) postoperative pain treatment groups. A single blinded observer evaluated and recorded postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) score as well as the background infusion rate, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), use of an additional antiemetic or analgesic, degree of sedation, and other side effects at 30 minutes, 2 hours, 8 hours, and 24 hours postoperatively. The degree of patient satisfaction was evaluated at 2 and 24 hours postoperatively.Results: There was no significant difference in the overall NRS score between the two groups. However, the use of rescue analgesics was significantly higher in group A (P=0.007). The incidence of PONV did not significantly differ between the two groups at 0.5 hours postoperatively; however, at 2 hours, it was significantly higher in group P than in group A (P=0.003). In contrast, the incidence of PONV was significantly lower in group P than in group A at 24 hours postoperatively (P=0.033). No significant group difference was observed in patient satisfaction.Conclusion: With an appropriate waiting time, a mechanical pump operating in POBI mode could be an effective PCA pump to reduce postoperative pain and side effects.","PeriodicalId":22016,"journal":{"name":"Soonchunhyang Medical Science","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Efficacy of Mechanical Patient-Controlled Analgesia Pump Operated in Patient Optimizing Background Infusion Mode and Conventional Nonmechanical Pump after Laparoscopic Surgery\",\"authors\":\"N. Kim, Sul Ki Park\",\"doi\":\"10.15746/sms.22.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and side effects of the mechanical patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), pumps operated in patient optimizing background infusion (POBI) mode, compared with the conventional nonmechanical PCA after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.Methods: In total, 211 patients were randomized to nonmechanical pump (n=106, group A) or mechanical pump (n=105, group P) postoperative pain treatment groups. A single blinded observer evaluated and recorded postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) score as well as the background infusion rate, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), use of an additional antiemetic or analgesic, degree of sedation, and other side effects at 30 minutes, 2 hours, 8 hours, and 24 hours postoperatively. The degree of patient satisfaction was evaluated at 2 and 24 hours postoperatively.Results: There was no significant difference in the overall NRS score between the two groups. However, the use of rescue analgesics was significantly higher in group A (P=0.007). The incidence of PONV did not significantly differ between the two groups at 0.5 hours postoperatively; however, at 2 hours, it was significantly higher in group P than in group A (P=0.003). In contrast, the incidence of PONV was significantly lower in group P than in group A at 24 hours postoperatively (P=0.033). No significant group difference was observed in patient satisfaction.Conclusion: With an appropriate waiting time, a mechanical pump operating in POBI mode could be an effective PCA pump to reduce postoperative pain and side effects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22016,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Soonchunhyang Medical Science\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Soonchunhyang Medical Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15746/sms.22.002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soonchunhyang Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15746/sms.22.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是评价在患者优化背景输注(POBI)模式下运行的机械患者自控镇痛(PCA)泵与常规非机械PCA在腹腔镜妇科手术后的疗效和副作用。方法:211例患者随机分为非机械泵组(n=106, A组)和机械泵组(n=105, P组)。在术后30分钟、2小时、8小时和24小时,单盲观察者评估并记录术后恶心和呕吐(PONV)评分以及背景输注速率、数字评定量表(NRS)、额外止吐或镇痛药的使用、镇静程度和其他副作用。分别于术后2小时和24小时对患者满意度进行评估。结果:两组患者NRS总分差异无统计学意义。而A组的镇痛药物使用率明显高于对照组(P=0.007)。术后0.5 h,两组间PONV的发生率无显著差异;但在2 h时,P组明显高于A组(P=0.003)。P组术后24小时PONV发生率明显低于A组(P=0.033)。两组患者满意度无显著差异。结论:在适当的等待时间下,机械泵在POBI模式下工作可以成为有效的PCA泵,减少术后疼痛和副作用。
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
Comparative Efficacy of Mechanical Patient-Controlled Analgesia Pump Operated in Patient Optimizing Background Infusion Mode and Conventional Nonmechanical Pump after Laparoscopic Surgery
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and side effects of the mechanical patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), pumps operated in patient optimizing background infusion (POBI) mode, compared with the conventional nonmechanical PCA after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.Methods: In total, 211 patients were randomized to nonmechanical pump (n=106, group A) or mechanical pump (n=105, group P) postoperative pain treatment groups. A single blinded observer evaluated and recorded postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) score as well as the background infusion rate, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), use of an additional antiemetic or analgesic, degree of sedation, and other side effects at 30 minutes, 2 hours, 8 hours, and 24 hours postoperatively. The degree of patient satisfaction was evaluated at 2 and 24 hours postoperatively.Results: There was no significant difference in the overall NRS score between the two groups. However, the use of rescue analgesics was significantly higher in group A (P=0.007). The incidence of PONV did not significantly differ between the two groups at 0.5 hours postoperatively; however, at 2 hours, it was significantly higher in group P than in group A (P=0.003). In contrast, the incidence of PONV was significantly lower in group P than in group A at 24 hours postoperatively (P=0.033). No significant group difference was observed in patient satisfaction.Conclusion: With an appropriate waiting time, a mechanical pump operating in POBI mode could be an effective PCA pump to reduce postoperative pain and side 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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Atrial Fibrillation after COVID-19 Vaccination in an Adolescent: A Case Report A Case of Extremely Premature Baby with Persistent Metabolic Acidosis, Hypoglycemia and Dyselectrolytemia Induced by Liposomal Amphotericin B Comparison of the Agitation-Reducing Effects of Esmolol and Lidocaine in Pediatric Strabismus Surgery: A Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Study The Coexistence of Fibromuscular Dysplasia of the Renal Artery and Graves’ Disease in an Adolescent: A Case Report Monitored Anesthesia Care Primarily Using Dexmedetomidine Provides Safe Sedation and Analgesic Effect in Uterine Artery Embolization: A Case Report
×
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