ABSTRACT
Background and Aims: Paravertebral block has been found to be a recommended method of analgesia for breast surgeries. We aimed to assess the efficacy of paravertebral block compared to morphine by means of the visual analogue scale (VAS), pain-related biomarkers, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) in adult patients undergoing breast cancer surgeries under general anesthesia. Methodology: Forty patients undergoing breast surgery with or without lymph outcome were randomly divided into two groups. Group M received general anesthesia with intraoperative injection morphine (0.1 mg/kg) and group P received general anesthesia with paravertebral block with 0.25% bupivacaine (0.3 ml/kg). The primary objective was to compare the postoperative pain using VAS at baseline, 2 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours. Secondary objectives were to compare the levels of pain-related biomarkers and ROS in both the groups at baseline, 24 hours, and 48 hours and to study the correlation between the VAS and level of pain-related biomarkers and ROS. Results: There was no significant difference in the postoperative VAS scores in both the groups (P = 0.252, 0.548, 0.488 at baseline, 24 hours, and 48 hours, respectively) and no significant difference in the mean biomarkers in both the groups. The mean VAS negatively correlated with biomarker levels at 24 hours and 48 hours, but the change in VAS after 24 hours and 48 hours did not significantly correlate with the change in the biomarkers. Conclusion: Paravertebral block is equally efficacious to intraoperative morphine for breast surgeries for postoperative analgesia. The biomarker levels were not significantly different when patients received paravertebral block or morphine.
ABSTRACT
Context: COVID-19 has led to a spate of rhino-orbital-cerebral mucormycosis cases in India, the epidemiology of which was least understood before. Only a few case series and case reports discuss the symptomatology of mucormycosis. Aims: The primary objective of our study was to estimate the prevalence of pain in patients with mucormycosis. The secondary objectives include the type, regional distribution, characteristics and determinants of pain in patients with mucormycosis. Settings and Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted on consecutive adult patients with mucormycosis in our hospital. Materials and Methods: Following recruitment, a preplanned written questionnaire that was tested for validity with peers, with closed-ended queries was filled on a sole visit by an anesthesia postgraduate based on the response by the patient. Statistical analysis used: Categorical variables were summarized as proportion and percentage. To compare quantitative variables, Chi-square test was used. Results: A total of 69 out of the 80 patients recruited complained of pain (P value = 0.468). A total of 76.8% of patients had pain in the supraorbital region with 84% of the patients complaining of throbbing pain and 98.6% needing analgesics. Gender, pre-existing diabetes mellitus, organs affected due to mucormycosis, prior steroid usage, prior COVID illness, surgical intervention, and previous experience of pain in the same region had no influence on the presence or severity of pain. Conclusions: Pain is one of the presenting symptoms in patients with mucormycosis which is usually in the supraorbital and maxillary region, nociceptive type and throbbing in nature, and moderate to severe in intensity usually managed with simple analgesics.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Topical morphine along with intrasite gel has been proven to be a simple and effective method to relieve pain. However, morphine is still not freely available in developing countries due to drug restrictions and stringent laws governing it. Loperamide has been reported to relieve pain caused by stomatitis effectively when given topically. Loperamide, being an mu receptor agonist with no systemic absorption, can serve a dual purpose here. Also loperamide being freely available as an over-the-counter drug can be a surrogate drug for topical application. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to compare the efficacy of loperamide and morphine in treating pain when applied topically along with intrasite gel. STUDY DESIGN: Adult patients with healthy wounds with pain on Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) greater than 5 with no systemic comorbid illness were divided randomly into 2 groups - group morphine or group loperamide - for 24 hours followed by a 1-day washout and crossover in the other group for 24 hours. Pain was assessed once every day. SETTING: Medical college and hospital. METHODS: The parameters assessed included: (1) characteristics of the ulcer; (2) pain was assessed by NRS-11 at 12-hour intervals for a period of 72 hours; and (3) patient satisfaction. Statistical analysis used repeated measures analysis of variance to measure change in mean NRS-11 within each group. Analysis of covariance was used to compare the mean change in NRS-11 in the 2 groups. RESULTS: Morphine and loperamide were equivocal in pain relief after 12 and 24 hours (P = 0.400 and P = 0.753); however, the patient satisfaction scores were better in the morphine group. LIMITATIONS: The earlier studies performed used injectable forms of morphine, for the sake of comparison, we used powdered morphine and powdered Loperamide diluted with saline. Confounding variables include ulcer size and aetiology, which can be a source of bias. The ulcer size was not standardized due to the paucity of sample to study. Equianalgesic doses of loperamide and morphine could not be found even after an extensive literature search. The loperamide dose used in our case was equal to the dose used orally since the same dose appears effective across a range of oral opioid analgesics. The morphine dose was standardized as 10 mg based on a mixture previously used to treat pain due to epidermolysis bullosa. CONCLUSIONS: Topical loperamide can be an efficacious and novel intervention to treat painful ulcers while avoiding systemic effects.
