0
selected
-
1.
Topical nifedipine with lidocaine ointment versus active control for pain after hemorrhoidectomy: results of a multicentre, prospective, randomized, double-blind study.
Perrotti, P, Dominici, P, Grossi, E, Cerutti, R, Antropoli, C
Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie. 2010;(1):17-24
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Spasm through the internal anal sphincter is one of the supposed causes for pain after hemorrhoidectomy, a common and distressing experience. We hypothesized that the addition of topical nifedipine to lidocaine would improve pain control by causing a relaxation of the smooth muscle of the internal anal sphincter. METHODS We conducted a multicentre randomized, double-blind trial to compare the efficacy of 0.3% nifedipine and 1.5% lidocaine ointment versus 1.5% lidocaine ointment alone in reducing pain after hemorrhoidectomy. A physician unaware of the treatment arm measured pain by use of the Analogue Chromatic Continuous Scale (ACCS) at baseline; soon after surgery; at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 hours after surgery; on day 7 after surgery; and at a final visit 14 days after surgery. The physician also noted the time to first analgesic administration within 24 hours after surgery. RESULTS In all, 135 patients per group participated (270 total). Evaluation of the delta ACCS score versus basal value, a covariate for rescue analgesic administration time, revealed better pain control in the group that received nifedipine with lidocaine at 6 hours after surgery and on day 7 (p < 0.011 and p < 0.054, respectively). We noticed no difference between groups for time of administration of rescue analgesic, blood pressure, heart rate or frequency of headache. CONCLUSION Although there was no difference between groups for time of administration of rescue analgesic after open hemorrhoidectomy, the patients' assessment of pain using ACCS showed that the use of topical nifedipine with lidocaine may provide a slight significant difference in favour of the study group at 6 hours and at day 7 after surgery. Narcotic analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration should continue to be recommended. Further research focusing on these outcomes is warranted.
-
2.
Paracervical block with combined ketorolac and lidocaine in first-trimester surgical abortion: a randomized controlled trial.
Cansino, C, Edelman, A, Burke, A, Jamshidi, R
Obstetrics and gynecology. 2009;(6):1220-1226
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To study the effects of a paracervical block with combined ketorolac and lidocaine on perceived pain during first-trimester surgical abortion. METHODS A double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial of 50 women undergoing first-trimester surgical abortions (before 11 weeks of gestation) received either oral ibuprofen with a lidocaine-alone paracervical block or an oral placebo and paracervical block with combined ketorolac and lidocaine. Women completed a series of 100-mm visual analog scales (anchors: 0=none, 100 mm=worst imaginable) to measure their perceived pain (anticipated pain, pain during and after surgical abortion, and total satisfaction). RESULTS Twenty-five women received preoperative oral ibuprofen followed by paracervical block with lidocaine alone, and 25 received oral placebo followed by paracervical block with combined ketorolac and lidocaine. Groups were similar with respect to sociodemographic variables. Women who received paracervical block with combined ketorolac and lidocaine reported significantly less pain after cervical dilation (59.8 compared with 74.8 mm, P<.05). The groups did not differ in perceived procedure-related or postoperative pain. There was no difference in overall satisfaction with pain control between the two groups (63.6 compared with 62.9 mm, P=.93). CONCLUSION Paracervical block with combined ketorolac and lidocaine significantly decreases perceived pain associated with cervical dilation during first-trimester surgical abortion. This analgesic mixture may be offered as an alternative pain regimen to women seeking first-trimester surgical abortion. It may also offer improved pain control in other gynecologic procedures necessitating cervical dilation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00617097. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I.
-
3.
A double-blind, randomized study comparing postoperative pain management using epidural ropivacaine with intravenous ketorolac or intravenous ketorolac alone following transabdominal hysterectomy.
Chinachoti, T, Niruthisard, S, Tuntisirin, O, Thienthong, S, Khunsongkiet, P, Payawal, F, Camagay, I, De Castro, R
Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet. 2002;:S837-47
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to compare the effect on postoperative pain of epidural ropivacaine in combination with intravenous ketorolac with intravenous ketorolac alone following transabdominal hysterectomy. DESIGN A multi-center, randomized, double-blind study was conducted in Thailand and the Philippines to assess postoperative pain management in 107 patients given ketorolac alone or in combination with epidural ropivacaine following transabdominal hysterectomy. Pain score was assessed using a 100-mm visual analogue pain scale (VAS). RESULTS The VAS scores for pain on coughing and at rest were significantly better in the ropivacaine group. The number of patients who asked for morphine in addition was higher in the ketorolac group compared to the ropivacaine + ketorolac group. The time taken to carry out the first three ambulatory steps was similar for both the two treatment groups. A higher degree of motor block was observed in the ropivacaine group over time. The adverse events observed were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION We demonstrated that epidural infusion of ropivacaine in addition with intravenous ketorolac gave superior pain relief at rest and on coughing in patients undergoing transabdominal hysterectomy when compared to the group receiving intravenous ketorolac alone.
-
4.
A comparative study of topical vs retrobulbar anesthesia in complicated cataract surgery.
Jacobi, PC, Dietlein, TS, Jacobi, FK
Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill. : 1960). 2000;(8):1037-43
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate and compare levels of patient discomfort and perioperative complications during phacoemulsification and implantation of a foldable intraocular lens under topical lidocaine hydrochloride and retrobulbar anesthesia in patients with cataract who also had exfoliation syndrome, uveitis, posterior synechia, phacodonesis, or previous intraocular surgery. DESIGN A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was carried out at 2 institutions. PARTICIPANTS A total of 476 eyes of 476 patients with various well-established risk factors fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In 238 eyes, phacoemulsification was performed under retrobulbar anesthesia, while the other 238 eyes received topical anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS All patients underwent temporal clear corneal phacoemulsification and implantation of a foldable intraocular lens. Patients under retrobulbar anesthesia received a single injection (3. 5-5.5 mL) of a combination of 0.75% bupivacaine hydrochloride, 2% lidocaine, and hyaluronidase into the retrobulbar space. Patients in the topical anesthesia group received a minimum of 5 doses (approximately 40 microL per dose) of 2% topical lidocaine. No intracameral injection of any anesthetic was given. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The number of complications and adverse events. The intraoperative conditions were judged by the surgeon (P.C.J. or F.K. J.), and a 10-point visual analog scale was used immediately after surgery to assess each patient's overall severity of intraoperative pain. RESULTS The overall intraoperative complication rate was 1.9% for capsular tear, 3.8% for zonular tear, 1.5% for vitreous loss, and 1.0% for iris prolapse. Apart from the incidence of vitreous loss, which was significantly (P =.041) lower in the topical anesthesia group, no statistically significant differences in intraoperative and early postoperative complications were found between the groups. A supplemental posterior sub-Tenon space injection was required in 1.3% of the topical anesthesia group and in 0.8% of the retrobulbar anesthesia group. Chemosis (2.5%), subconjunctival hemorrhage (1.7%), and periorbital hematoma (0.8%) were seen only in the retrobulbar anesthesia group. The mean + SE pain scores estimated by the patients were 0.84 + 1.30 in the topical anesthesia group and 0.73 + 1.50 in the retrobulbar anesthesia group (P =.41). Patient preference for topical anesthesia (91%) appeared to be significantly (P =.01) higher than for retrobulbar anesthesia (62%). The surgeons found anesthesia-related intraoperative difficulty to be slightly lower in the retrobulbar anesthesia group (8%) than in the topical anesthesia group (14%). CONCLUSIONS Surgery-related complications and patient discomfort were similar for the 2 methods of anesthesia. Topical anesthesia is justified as a means of improving safety without causing discomfort to the patient even in complicated cases of cataract surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1037-1043
-
5.
Topical anesthesia in posterior vitrectomy.
Yepez, J, CedeƱo de Yepez, J, Arevalo, JF
Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.). 2000;(1):41-5
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy of topical anesthesia as an alternative to peribulbar or retrobulbar anesthesia in posterior vitrectomy procedures. METHODS Posterior vitrectomy using topical anesthesia (4% lidocaine drops) was performed prospectively in 134 eyes (134 patients) with various vitreoretinal diseases, including severe proliferative diabetic retinopathy (n = 69), vitreous hemorrhage (n = 12), rhegmatogenous retinal detachments (n = 11), epiretinal membranes (n = 10), macular holes (n = 7), dislocated crystalline lens or intraocular lens (n = 6), giant retinal tears (n = 5), intraocular foreign bodies (n = 3), trauma (n = 3), endophthalmitis (n = 3), subfoveal choroidal neovascular membrane (n = 3), and neovascular glaucoma (n = 2). In 26 (19.4%) eyes, posterior vitrectomy was combined with a scleral buckling procedure, and in 84 (62.6%) eyes, argon laser photocoagulation was performed. Preoperative and intraoperative sedation of varying degrees was necessary. Subjective pain and discomfort were graded from 1 (no pain or discomfort) to 4 (severe pain and discomfort). RESULTS All patients had grade 1 pain and discomfort during most of the procedure. All patients had grade 2 (mild) pain and discomfort during pars plana sclerotomies, external bipolar cautery, and conjunctival closure. The average amount of 4% lidocaine drops needed during each procedure was 0.5 mL. No patient required additional retrobulbar, peribulbar, or sub-Tenon anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS This technique avoids the risk of globe perforation, retrobulbar hemorrhage, and prolonged postoperative akinesia of the eye. With appropriate case selection, topical anesthesia is a safe and effective alternative to peribulbar or retrobulbar anesthesia in three-port pars plana vitrectomy procedures.