Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
3.
Anesth Pain Med ; 6(1): e32101, 2016 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27110530

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pain scores are used for acute pain management. The assessment of pain by the patient as well as the caregiver can be influenced by a variety of factors. The numeric rating scale (NRS) is widely used due to its easy application. The NRS requires abstract thinking by a patient to assign a score to correctly reflect analgesic needs, and its interpretation is subject to bias. OBJECTIVES: The study was done to validate a 4-point objective pain score (OPS) for the evaluation of acute postoperative pain and its comparison with the NRS. PATIENT AND METHODS: A total of 1021 paired readings of the OPS and NRS of 93 patients who underwent laparotomy and used patient-controlled analgesia were evaluated. Acute pain service (APS) personnel recorded the OPS and NRS. Rescue analgesia was divided into two incremental levels (level 1-paracetamol 1 g for NRS 2 - 5 and OPS 3, Level 2-Fentanyl 25 mcg for NRS ≥ 6 and OPS 1 and 2). In cases of disagreement between the two scores, an independent consultant decided the rescue analgesia. RESULTS: The NRS and OPS agreed across the range of pain. There were 25 disagreements in 8 patients. On 24 occasions, rescue analgesia was increased from level 1 to 2, and one occasion it was decreased from level 2 to 1. On all 25 occasions, the decision to supplement analgesia went in favor of the OPS over the NRS. Besides these 25 disagreements, there were 17 occasions in which observer bias was possible for level 2 rescue analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: The OPS is a good stand-alone pain score and is better than the NRS for defining mild and moderate pain. It may even be used to supplement NRS when it is indicative of mild or moderate pain.

5.
World J Gastrointest Surg ; 7(6): 86-93, 2015 Jun 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26131330

ABSTRACT

Liver transplantation has been associated with massive blood loss and considerable transfusion requirements. Bleeding in orthotopic liver transplantation is multifactorial. Technical difficulties inherent to this complex surgical procedure and pre operative derangements of the primary and secondary coagulation system are thought to be the principal causes of perioperative hemorrhage. Intraoperative practices such as massive fluid resuscitation and resulting hypothermia and hypocalcemia secondary to citrate toxicity further aggravate the preexisting coagulopathy and worsen the perioperative bleeding. Excessive blood loss and transfusion during orthotopic liver transplant are correlated with diminished graft survival and increased septic episodes and prolonged ICU stay. With improvements in surgical skills, anesthetic technique, graft preservation, use of intraoperative cell savers and overall perioperative management, orthotopic liver transplant is now associated with decreased intra operative blood losses. The purpose of this review is to discuss the risk factors predictive of increased intra operative bleeding in patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplant.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL