Percutaneous sciatic nerve block with tramadol induces analgesia and motor blockade in two animal pain models

Local anesthetic efficacy of tramadol has been reported following intradermal application. Our aim was to investigate the effect of perineural tramadol as the sole analgesic in two pain models. Male Wistar rats (280-380 g; N = 5/group) were used in these experiments. A neurostimulation-guided sciatic nerve block was performed and 2 percent lidocaine or tramadol (1.25 and 5 mg) was perineurally injected in two different animal pain models. In the flinching behavior test, the number of flinches was evaluated and in the plantar incision model, mechanical and heat thresholds were measured. Motor effects of lidocaine and tramadol were quantified and a motor block score elaborated. Tramadol, 1.25 mg, completely blocked the first and reduced the second phase of the flinching behavior test. In the plantar incision model, tramadol (1.25 mg) increased both paw withdrawal latency in response to radiant heat (8.3 ± 1.1, 12.7 ± 1.8, 8.4 ± 0.8, and 11.1 ± 3.3 s) and mechanical threshold in response to von Frey filaments (459 ± 82.8, 447.5 ± 91.7, 320.1 ± 120, 126.43 ± 92.8 mN) at 5, 15, 30, and 60 min, respectively. Sham block or contralateral sciatic nerve block did not differ from perineural saline injection throughout the study in either model. The effect of tramadol was not antagonized by intraperitoneal naloxone. High dose tramadol (5 mg) blocked motor function as well as 2 percent lidocaine. In conclusion, tramadol blocks nociception and motor function in vivo similar to local anesthetics.

Percutaneous sciatic nerve block with tramadol induces analgesia and motor blockade in two animal pain models.

Local anesthetic efficacy of tramadol has been reported following intradermal application. Our aim was to investigate the effect of perineural tramadol as the sole analgesic in two pain models. Male Wistar rats (280-380 g; N = 5/group) were used in these experiments. A neurostimulation-guided sciatic nerve block was performed and 2% lidocaine or tramadol (1.25 and 5 mg) was perineurally injected in two different animal pain models. In the flinching behavior test, the number of flinches was evaluated and in the plantar incision model, mechanical and heat thresholds were measured. Motor effects of lidocaine and tramadol were quantified and a motor block score elaborated. Tramadol, 1.25 mg, completely blocked the first and reduced the second phase of the flinching behavior test. In the plantar incision model, tramadol (1.25 mg) increased both paw withdrawal latency in response to radiant heat (8.3 ± 1.1, 12.7 ± 1.8, 8.4 ± 0.8, and 11.1 ± 3.3 s) and mechanical threshold in response to von Frey filaments (459 ± 82.8, 447.5 ± 91.7, 320.1 ± 120, 126.43 ± 92.8 mN) at 5, 15, 30, and 60 min, respectively. Sham block or contralateral sciatic nerve block did not differ from perineural saline injection throughout the study in either model. The effect of tramadol was not antagonized by intraperitoneal naloxone. High dose tramadol (5 mg) blocked motor function as well as 2% lidocaine. In conclusion, tramadol blocks nociception and motor function in vivo similar to local anesthetics.

Tenoxicam controls pain without altering orthodontic movement of maxillary canines.

OBJECTIVES: To study the efficacy of tenoxicam for pain control, its potential for preemptive analgesia, and its influence on the orthodontic movement of upper canine teeth. DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled double-blind cross-over study. The patients were divided into three groups. Two groups received tenoxicam in daily doses of 20 mg orally for 3 days. Group A received the first dose of the drug before orthodontic activation and group B, just afterwards. Group C (control) received a placebo for 3 days. All groups had access to 750 mg of paracetamol up to four times a day. Three orthodontic activations were performed at 30-day intervals. Each patient belonged to two different groups. Pain intensity was assessed using a descriptive Pain Scale and a Visual Analog Scale. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Private clinic; 36 patients undergoing bilateral canine tooth retraction. RESULTS: The statistical analysis did not show any difference in movement between the active groups and the control at any time. There was no statistical difference between the groups that received tenoxicam. Pain intensity in these groups was lower than in the placebo group. The difference in pain intensity between the active groups and the control was greatest at the assessment made 12 h after activation and it tended to zero, 72 h after activation. CONCLUSIONS: Tenoxicam did not influence orthodontic movement of the upper canines. It was effective for pain control and did not present any preemptive analgesic effect.