Radiofrequency thermocoagulation for the treatment of lower extremity ischemic pain: Comparison of monopolar and bipolar modes.

OBJECTIVES: Radiofrequency thermocoagulation (RFT) has been reported to be used safely to treat ischemic lower extremity pain. The objective of the present study was to evaluate efficiency of RFT for treatment of lower extremity ischemic pain and to compare effectiveness of monopolar RFT and bipolar RFT modes. METHODS: Following ethics committee approval, 30 American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I-III patients with ischemic lower extremity pain aged between 18 and 65 years were recruited. Patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups: MRT group (n=15) received monopolar RFT (80°C) for 2 minutes at L2-3 level, and BRT group (n=15) received bipolar RFT (80°C) for 2 minutes at L2-3 level. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, pain score, and supplemental analgesic requirements were recorded at 24 hours after application and at 7, 30, and 90 days. RESULTS: Numerical rating scale values in both groups decreased significantly over time and it was found to be significantly lower in BRT group after first and third months (p<0.05). Supplemental analgesic requirements were similar with no significant difference between the 2 groups at any point of study period (p>0.05). No adverse event or complication related to procedure or treatment was reported. CONCLUSION: In patients with ischemic lower extremity pain, both monopolar and bipolar RFT treatment modalities were found to significantly decrease pain levels. However, bipolar mode led to lower pain scores at 30 and 90 days, and longer duration of analgesia than monopolar mode.

Bipolar Versus Unipolar Intraarticular Pulsed Radiofrequency Thermocoagulation in Chronic Knee Pain Treatment: A Prospective Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic knee pain is a major widespread problem causing significant impairment of daily function. Pulsed radiofrequency has been shown to reduce severe chronic joint pain as a non-pharmacological and less invasive treatment method. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the effectiveness of unipolar and bipolar intraarticular pulsed radiofrequency methods in chronic knee pain control. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: Pain clinic in Cukurova University Faculty of Medicine. METHODS: One hundred patients, aged 20 - 70 years with grade 2 or 3 knee osteoarthritis were included in this study. Patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups to receive either unipolar (group U, n = 50) or bipolar (group B, n = 50) intraarticular pulsed radiofrequency (IAPRF) with a 45 V voltage, 2 Hz frequency, 42° C temperature, 10 msec pulse width, and 10 minute duration. We recorded visual analog scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index LK 3.1WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index LK 3.1) scores of patients at baseline and one, 4, and 12 weeks after the procedure. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with ≥ 50% reduction in knee pain at 12 weeks after the procedure. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the groups according to VAS scores at all post-intervention time points. In group B, 84% of patients, and in the group U, 50% of patients achieved at least 50% knee pain relief from the baseline to 3 months. In group B, WOMAC scores were significantly lower than the group U at one and 3 months. LIMITATIONS: Lack of long-term clinical results and supportive laboratory tests. CONCLUSION: Bipolar IAPRF is more advantageous in reducing chronic knee pain and functional recovery compared with unipolar IAPRF. Further studies with longer follow-up times, laboratory-based tests, and different generator settings are required to establish the clinical importance and well-defined mechanism of action of PRF. This study protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT02141529), on May 15, 2014. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval date: January 16, 2014, and number: 26/9Key words: Chronic pain, intraarticular, knee joint, knee osteoarthritis, pain management, pulsed radiofrequency treatment, quality of life, recovery of function.

The Effect of Intravenous Magnesium Sulphate Treatment on the Spinal Anaesthesia Produced by Bupivacaine in Pre-eclamptic Patients.

OBJECTIVE: In our study, the effect of intravenous magnesium sulphate in normal and pre-eclamptic patients on spinal anaesthesia produced by bupivacaine was investigated. METHODS: Sixty-four pregnant (32 normal and 32 pre-eclamptic) were accepted in this study. Pregnants were divided into four groups as patients given intravenous magnesium sulphate and as control. Spinal anaesthesia was induced with 12.5 mg 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Intraoperative and postoperative haemodynamic variables, sensorial block periods, onset times of sensorial and motor block, maximum sensorial block levels, the time to reach maximum block level, Bromage scores, consumptions of intraoperative analgesic and ephedrine, the quality of anaesthesia, the duration of spinal anaesthesia and magnesium levels in blood and cerebrospinal fluid were measured and recorded. RESULTS: The level of magnesium in blood and cerebrospinal fluid was significantly higher in the group given magnesium in pre-eclamptic patients (p<0.01). Onset of sensory block times were significantly longer in intravenous magnesium group than in groups 1, 2 and 3 (p<0.05). Onset of motor block times were significantly longer and the duration of anaesthesia was shorter in groups given magnesium (p<0.05). Although the quality of anaesthesia was similar, supplemental analgesic consumption was significantly higher in pre-eclamptic pregnants given magnesium sulphate than in pre-eclamptic pregnants who were not given magnesium sulphate (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Intravenous magnesium sulphate treatment during the spinal anaesthesia produced by bupivacaine extended the onset of sensory and motor block times, shortened the duration of spinal anaesthesia and therefore led to early analgesic requirement.

A Comparative Study of the Efficacy of IV Dexketoprofen, Lornoxicam, and Diclophenac Sodium on Postoperative Analgesia and Tramadol Consumption in Patients Receiving Patient-Controlled Tramadol.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare the effects of dexketoprofen, lornoxicam, and diclophenac sodium on postoperative analgesia and tramadol consumption in patients receiving postoperative patient-controlled tramadol after a major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Eighty patients were randomized to receive one of the four study drugs. Patients in group dexketoprofen (DT) received IV 50 mg dexketoprofen, group lornoxicam (LR) received IV 8 mg lornoxicam, group diclophenac sodium (DS) received 75 mg IV diclophenac sodium and group saline (S) received 0.9% saline in 2 mL syringes, 20 min before the end of anaesthesia. A standardized (1 mg kg(-1)) dose of tramadol was routinely administered to all patients as the loading dose at the end of surgery. Postoperatively, whenever patients requested, they were allowed to use a tramadol patient-controlled analgesia device giving a bolus dose (0.2 mg kg(-1)) of tramadol. Pain, discomfort, and sedation scores, cumulative tramadol consumption, supplemental meperidine requirement, and side effects were recorded. RESULTS: Visual rating scale and patient discomfort scores were significantly lower in DT, LR and DS groups compared to those in in group S (p<0.001). Cumulative tramadol consumption was significantly lower in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-treated groups at each study period after the second postoperative hour than in group S (p<0.001). Supplemental meperidine requirement was significantly higher in group S at each study period after postoperative 30 min than in NSAID-treated groups (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: After major abdominal surgery, adding IV diclophenac, lornoxicam or dexketoprofen to patient-controlled tramadol resulted in lower pain scores, smaller tramadol consumption, less rescue supplemental analgesic requirement, and fewer side effects compared with the tramadol alone group.

RAPID FLUID ADMINISTRATION AND THE INCIDENCE OF HYPOTENSION INDUCED BY SPINAL ANESTHESIA AND EPHEDRINE REQUIREMENT: THE EFFECT OF CRYSTALLOID VERSUS COLLOID COLOADING.

PURPOSE: Spinal anesthesia for caesarean delivery is often associated with hypotension. This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of rapid crystalloid (Lactated Ringer's solution; LRS) or colloid (hydroxyethyl starch; HES) cohydration with a second intravenous access line on the incidence of hypotension and ephedrine requirement during spinal anesthesia for cesarean section. METHODS: We studied 90 women with uncomplicated pregnancies undergoing elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. Intravenous access was established in all patients with two peripheral intravenous lines, the first being used for the baseline volume infusion. Immediately after induction of spinal anesthesia, LRS (Group L) or HES (Group C) infusions were started at the maximal possible rate via the second line in groups L and C respectively. In the third group (Group E), patients received lactated Ringer's solution at a 'keep vein open' rate to maintain the double-blind nature. The incidence of hypotension, ephedrine requirements, total amount of volume and side effects were recorded. RESULTS: The incidence of hypotension was significantly greater in group E than in groups L and C, and greater in group L than in group C (p < 0.03 and p < 0.01 respectively ). The total dose of ephedrine used to treat hypotension was significantly less in groups L and C than in group E (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001 respectively). Groups L and C received similar infusion volumes and doses of ephedrine. CONCLUSIONS: Giving either LR or HES coloading via a second IV line caused less hypotension and required less use of ephedrine compared to no coloading. There were no maternal or neonatal side effects.

Coadministration of intravenous remifentanil and morphine for post-thoracotomy pain: comparison with intravenous morphine alone.

OBJECTIVES: In this double-blind, randomized study, the authors compared the effects of a patient-controlled remifentanil and morphine combination with morphine alone on post-thoracotomy pain, analgesic consumption, and side effects. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study. SETTING: University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer patients at a university hospital undergoing elective thoracotomy surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were allocated randomly into 2 groups to receive patient-controlled analgesia: the morphine (M) group or the morphine plus remifentanil (MR) group. Pain, discomfort, sedation scores, cumulative patient-controlled morphine consumption, rescue analgesic (meperidine) requirement and side effects were recorded for 24 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty patients were allocated randomly to receive intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine alone (M) or morphine plus remifentanil (MR) in a double-blind manner. Patients were allowed to use bolus doses of morphine (0.02 mg/kg) or the same dose of a morphine plus remifentanil (0.2 µg/kg) mixture every 10 minutes without a background infusion. VAS scores were lower in the MR group than in the M group at 30 minutes (p = 0.04), 1 hour (p = 0.03), and 2 hours (p = 0.04). Mean cumulative doses of morphine were not significantly different at 27.8±15 mg for the M group and 21.9±10.5 mg for the MR group. Significantly more patients needed meperidine in the M group (p = 0.039); these also experienced more nausea (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of PCA remifentanil with morphine for the treatment of post-thoracotomy pain did not reduce morphine consumption but provided superior analgesia, less use of rescue analgesics, and fewer side effects compared to morphine alone.

The Comparison of Patient-Controlled Remifentanil Administered by Two Different Protocols (Bolus and Bolus+Infusion) and Intramuscular Meperidine for Labor Analgesia.

OBJECTIVE: Nowadays, there are many pain relief methods for reducing the pain and stress of labor and delivery. In our study, two different remifentanil protocols (bolus and bolus+infusion) administered by patient-controlled analgesia method were compared with intramuscular meperidine for labor analgesia. METHODS: Ninety parturients who were scheduled for vaginal delivery were included in this study. Patients were randomly divided into 3 groups, with 15 primiparous and 15 multiparous patients in each group. Whenever a patient requested analgesics during the labor, Group M was given 1 mg kg(-1) intramuscular meperidine, Group B was given intravenous bolus patient-controlled remifentanil, and Group IB was given intravenous bolus+infusion patient-controlled remifentanil. Patients' systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, pain-comfort and sedation scores, remifentanil consumption, side effects, and Apgar scores of the newborns were evaluated during the labor and delivery. RESULTS: Patients' mean pain and comfort scores were significantly lower in Groups B and IB than in Group M at all time intervals except the first minute. Compared with Group IB, mean pain and comfort scores at 15, 30, 60, and 120 minutes were significantly higher in Group B. The mean sedation scores were similar among the groups. Total remifentanil consumption was lower in Group IB than in Group B, but it was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Patient-controlled intravenous bolus or bolus+infusion remifentanil provided more effective analgesia and patient comfort than intramuscular meperidine for labor analgesia. Especially during labor, bolus+infusion remifentanil administration provided better pain and patient comfort scores than bolus alone, without increasing remifentanil consumption.

A comparative study on the effects of intrathecal morphine added to levobupivacaine for spinal anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study, we investigated the sensory, motor, and analgesic block characteristics oftwo diferent doses of morphine compared with saline when added to 0.5 percent levobupivacaine. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS: One hundred and twelve ASA I or II adult patients undergoing cesarean section with combined-spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) were randomly allocated to receive 0.5 mL of0.9 percent sodium chloride in group S, 0.1 mg of morphine in group M1, or 0.2 mg of morphine in group M2 following 15 mg of isobaric spinal levobupivacaine 0.5 percent (3 mi). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We recorded the following: onset and duration of sensory and motor block, duration of spinal anesthesia, time to first request for analgesia, and side effects. RESULTS: The onset time ofsensory block was significantly less in group M2 (3.5 + 3 minutes) than S (4 +/- 3 minutes; p < 0.003). Parturientsgiven morphine had a significantly greater duration of analgesia (554 +/- 350 minutes in group M1 and 879 -725 minutes in group M2) than the saline group (80 +/- 70 minutes; p < 0.001). Similarly, the time to first request for analgesia was longer in groups M1 (582 +/- 470 minutes) and M2 (917+/- 709 minutes) than in group S (92 +/- 77 minutes; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing cesarean delivery with CSEA, adding intrathecal morphine (0.1 and 0.2 mg) to 15 mg of spinal levobupivacaine prolonged the duration of spinal analgesia and provided rapid onset of action and longer time to first analgesic request without causing any significant side effect compared to saline.

Comparison of effects of ketamine, ketamine-dexmedetomidine and ketamine-midazolam on dressing changes of burn patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized, controlled study was to compare the sedoanalgesic effects of ketamine-dexmedetomidine and ketamine-midazolam on dressing changes of burn patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following Ethics Committee approval and informed patient consent, 90 ASA physical statuses I and II adult burn patients were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into three groups. Ten minutes before dressing change, the dexmedetomidine group (group KD) (n = 30) received a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine at a rate of 1 µg kg(-1), the midazolam group (group KM) (n = 30) received a continuous infusion of midazolam at a rate of 0.05 mg kg(-1) and the saline group (group KS) (n = 30) received a continuous infusion of saline intravenously. One minute before dressing change, each patient was administered 1 mg kg(-1) ketamine intravenously. Hemodynamic variables, pain and sedation scores, the number of patients requiring additional ketamine, time to dressing change and recovery time were recorded. RESULTS: Systolic blood pressure (SBP) values were significantly lower at, before and after ketamine administration; and 5, 10 and 15 minutes after the procedure in group KD in comparison with the other groups (P <0.05). There was no significant difference in pain scores among the groups during the study period. Sedation scores were significantly higher in group KD than in groups KM and KS at the end of the first hour (P <0.05). Time to dressing change and recovery time were similar in all the groups CONCLUSION: In burn patients undergoing dressing changes, although both combinations ketamine-dexmedetomidine and ketamine-midazolam offered an effective sedoanalgesia without causing any significant side effect, the former resulted in higher sedation and lower hemodynamic discrepancy.

Epidural ropivacaine versus ropivacaine plus tramadol in postoperative analgesia in children undergoing major abdominal surgery: a comparison.

PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to compare the effects of ropivacaine alone and ropivacaine plus tramadol administered epidurally for postoperative analgesia in children. METHODS: Following Ethics Committee approval and informed parent consent, 44 children aged between 2 and 12 years, with ASA physical status I or II, who were undergoing major abdominal surgery were included in the study. Following tracheal intubation, patients were placed into lateral decubitus position and an epidural catheter (22-24 G) was inserted by using a Tuohy needle. Patients were randomly divided into two groups to receive either ropivacaine alone (0.2%), 0.7 ml/kg, in group I, or ropivacaine (0.2%) plus tramadol (2 mg/kg), with total volume 0.7 ml/kg, in group II, epidurally in both groups. Hemodynamic variables, pain and sedation scores, duration of analgesia, and side effects were recorded postoperatively. RESULTS: The duration of analgesia was significantly longer in group RT than in group R (298.6 ± 28 and 867.9 ± 106.8 min in group I and II, respectively) (P < 0.05). CHEOPS scores were significantly lower in group RT at 30 min, 45 min, and 3 h postoperatively than in group R (P < 0.05). However, sedation scores were similar between the two groups. Twenty-two patients (100%) in group R and 13 patients (59%) in group RT needed supplemental analgesia postoperatively. There were no significant differences in side effects between the groups. CONCLUSION: In children undergoing major abdominal surgery, epidural tramadol, added to epidural ropivacaine, provided lower pain scores, longer duration of analgesia, and lower postoperative analgesic requirement.

Comparison of the effect of adding remifentanil to patient-controlled tramadol or morphine for postoperative analgesia after major abdominal surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, the authors investigated the effect of the addition of remifentanil to tramadol or morphine for patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study. SETTING: University Hospital. PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: The authors randomly allocated 133 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery to receive IV PCA with tramadol alone, tramadol plus remifentanil, morphine alone or morphine plus remifentanil. INTERVENTIONS: Bolus doses of tramadol (0.2 mg/kg), tramadol (0.2 mg/kg) plus remifentanil (0.2 microg/kg), morphine (0.02 mg/kg), or morphine (0.02 mg/kg) plus remifentanil (0.2 microg/kg) were available every 10 minutes without time limit or background infusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Discomfort, sedation, pain scores, side effects, and total and bolus tramadol and morphine consumption were recorded for up to 24 hours after the start of PCA. RESULTS: Pain scores at rest and movement were greater with tramadol alone than in the other groups at 1, 2, and 6 hours (p < 0.0125). The addition of remifentanil reduced cumulative tramadol consumption at 6, 12, and 24 hours, but not morphine consumption. More patients required supplementary rescue analgesia with meperidine, and with greater dosage, with tramadol alone (p < 0.001), and the incidence of nausea was greater with tramadol alone. The addition of remifentanil not only significantly improved discomfort scores in remifentanil groups, but also increased the degree of sedation in morphine-remifentanil group. CONCLUSIONS: After major abdominal surgery, adding remifentanil to PCA tramadol resulted in better pain scores, lower analgesic consumption, and fewer side effects when compared with tramadol alone. However, analgesic outcome with remifentanil was not prominent in MR group as much as in TR group.

[Effect of ondansetron in lower extremity bone surgery on morphine and tramadol consumption using patient controlled analgesia]. / Alt ekstremite kemik cerrahisinde hasta kontrollü analjezide ondansetronun tramadol ve morfin tüketimine etkisi.

In this study, we aimed to assess the effect of administration of ondansetron on morphine and tramadol consumptions. After approval by the ethics committee, 120 patients with ASA status I or II, who will undergo elective lower extremity surgery, were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into 4 groups following the anesthesia induction. Group I received tramadol as PCA with an infusion of 0.3 mg/kg following a loading dose of 1.5 mg/kg administered 1 hour before the end of the surgery. Group II received ondansetron 0.1 mg/kg following induction of anesthesia, additionally. Group III received morphine as PCA with an infusion following a loading dose of 0.15 mg/kg administered 30 minutes before the end of surgery. Group IV received ondansetron 0.1 mg/kg following induction of anesthesia, additionally. Pain scores(VAS), nausea, vomitting and sedation scores, analgesic consumptions and adverse effects were recorded at 5th, 15th, 30th, 45th minutes and 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th hours postoperatively. Postoperative VAS, nausea, vomitting and sedation scores were similar among the groups. The analgesic consumption was found significantly higher at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th hours in group II. No statistically significant difference was found in analgesic consumption between group III and IV at all times. We concluded that, ondansetron, when administered as nausea prophylaxis in patients receiving tramadol and morphine as PCA, did not effect morphine consumption whereas did increased tramadol consumption.

[Comparison of ropivacaine, ropivacaine plus tramadol and ropivacaine plus morphine in patients undergoing minor hand surgery]. / Minör el cerrahisinde rejyonal intravenöz anestezide ropivakain, ropivakain-tramadol ve ropivakain-morfinin karsilastirilmasi.

In our study we aimed to compare the effects of ropivacaine alone, ropivacaine plus tramadol HCl, and ropivacaine plus morphine HCl used as intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA), on duration to the initiation of analgesia, total analgesia time, analgesic requirement, sedation levels and hemodynamic parameters. 53 patients undergoing minor hand surgery were included into the study. Patients were randomly divided into three groups to receive 40 ml of ropivacaine 0.2 % (Group R, n=18), ropivacaine 0.2 % plus 1 mg/kg tramadol HCl (Group RT, n=18), and ropivacaine 0.2 % plus 0.1 mg/kg morphine HCl (Group RM, n=17) as IVRA. Following the injection, the durations for the initiation of analgesia were recorded. Levels of sedation, analgesia (VAS) and hemodynamic parameters were recorded in 5 minute intervals throughout first 35 minutes intraoperatively and at 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45 and 60th minutes postoperatively. Patients were asked about the initiation of pain and requirements of analgesic at the first postoperative day. The duration to the initiation of analgesia was similar between the groups. Total analgesia time was found to be 304.0 +/- 317.6 min in Group R, 327.0 +/- 316.5 min in Group RT, and 635.9 +/- 492.3 min in Group RM. The difference between Group R and RM was statistically significant (p<0.05). Analgesic requirements were similar between the groups (p>0.05). Mild local anesthetic toxicity was observed in Group RM in two patients. We conclude that, when used as IVRA, ropivacaine alone or with tramadol or morphine produced similar analgesia and surgery conditions, and ropivacaine plus morphine had more adverse effects besides its longer duration of analgesia.

[Effect of tramadol on regeneration after experimental sciatic nerve injury]. / Deneysel siyatik sinir hasarinin rejenerasyonunda tramadolün etkisi.

Abnormal impulses in peripheral nerves play a critical role in neuropathic pain syndromes. The voltage-gated Na+ channels that underlie the action potential are main targets for clinically useful drugs in the pain therapy. Systemic tramadol has been shown to have clinical efficacy against some forms of neuropathic pain. Therefore, we investigated the mechanisms of action of tramadol by an in vitro model by sucrose-gap technique. Tramadol produced concentration-dependent and frequency-dependent decrements in CAP amplitude. Also, injured nerves were more sensitive to tramadol. Tramadol decreased the amplitude of the delayed depolarization and the hyperpolarizing afterpotentials. In conclusion, blocking potencies of small concentration tramadol on the delayed depolarization and hyperpolarizing afterpotential in regeneration period may be contributed for understanding of the action mechanisms of tramadol on neuropathic pain therapy.

Safe and effective sedation and analgesia for bone marrow aspiration procedures in children with alfentanil, remifentanil and combinations with midazolam.

BACKGROUND: Invasive procedures such as bone marrow aspiration in children may be painful and cause anxiety. We investigated the efficacy and safety of remifentanil (R) alfentanil (A), remifentanil-midazolam (RM), and alfentanil-midazolam (AM) combinations in providing analgesia and sedation for bone marrow aspiration. METHODS: Eighty children undergoing a diagnostic bone marrow aspiration whose ages ranged from 5-16 years (mean 9.20 +/- 3.00 years) were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to one of 4 treatment groups. Vital signs, sedation and pain scores, somatic responses (sweating and tears) were recorded before, during bone marrow aspiration and after 5 and 15 min of the procedure. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between sedation and the CHEOPS scores of the four groups during and after the procedures. The VAS scores were significantly higher for group A compared with groups R and RM during the procedure (P < 0.008). There were no differences between the VAS scores in group AM compared with groups R and RM (P > 0.008). There were also no statistical differences among the VAS scores of four groups after the procedure (P > 0.008). All patients had adequate sedation and analgesia. None of the patients in the study had deep sedation, hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia, or respiratory depression. CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil, alfentanil, remifentanil-midazolam, and alfentanil-midazolam combinations are effective in children and can be used safely in bone marrow aspiration which is a brief but painful procedure performed in the pediatric patient group.

[Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in postoperative pain management]. / Postoperatif agri tedavisinde siklooksijenaz-2 inhibitörleri.

Management of acute postoperative pain remains suboptimal; nearly 80 % of the patients report moderate to extreme pain following surgery. Nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have a role in postoperative pain management, but conventional NSAIDs can cause gastrointestinal ulceration, renal injury, and disruption of platelet function and hemostasis. Recently, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) specific inhibitors such as rofecoxib and celecoxib were developed to provide the increased efficacy of non-specific NSAIDs while limiting associated side effects. These drugs have demonstrated analgesic efficacy and opioid sparing effect after variety of surgical procedures. This article will review the role and outcome of COX-2 inhibitors for postoperative pain management.