[Comparative study of conventional and topical heparin treatments for burns analgesia]. / Estudo comparativo entre tratamento convencional e tratamento com heparina tópica para a analgesia de queimaduras.

OBJECTIVE: This was a prospective, randomized, open-label study controlled by active comparator. The aim was to assess analgesic efficacy and overall tolerability of a burn treatment based on topic administration of unfractionated heparin. METHODS: Fifty eight male or female patients were randomized for conventional treatment (group C) or topical heparin treatment (group TH). Ages of patients enrolled ranged from 18 to 55 years. They had 2nd and 3rd degree burns on 10% to 30% of the body surface (BS) caused by fire or scald, no hemorrhagic diseases, no hypersensitivity to heparin and less than 10% of the BS burned to 3rd degree. The group C had frequent debridement under anesthesia or analgesia and received silver sulfadiazine dressings. The group TH had the first debridement and their wounds left open to receive 4200 IU of unfractionated heparin topically for each 1% of burned BS, three times daily. Efficacy was evaluated from files of the 38 patients who completed the study according to demand of analgesic medications and response to the pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Tolerability was evaluated from the files of all 58 randomized patients by the comparative incidence of adverse reactions. RESULTS: The group TH demanded less analgesic medications (11.83 +/- 9.38 per patient against 33.35 +/- 20.63 for the C group, p<0.01), reported less pain in the VAS, had less fever and more bleeding than group C. There was no difference in the incidence of local infection, septicemia and safety exams. CONCLUSION: The group TH presented less pain without important tolerability problems.

Failure of subarachnoid blocks.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Due to the discomfort caused to patients, failure of subarachnoid blocks that happen occasionally even when properly conducted be the most capable professionals have been described since Bier. However, the concept of failure and especially identification of the causes vary. The objective of this report was to identify the causes of this discomfort through a systematic review of publications with a significant number of patients. CONTENTS: The analysis was divided in three topics: anatomy and its variations; anesthetic agent, focusing on drug selection, its solutions, and additions to achieve the most appropriate result of the proposed surgery; and the dose, discussing concentration, volume, or gravimetric dose, to obtain the most adequate result regarding the intensity of the blockade and its duration. CONCLUSIONS: Failures are more commonly secondary to technical factors: adequate anatomic assessment, judicious choice of the needle and puncture site, care when storing the drugs, dose adequacy, and baricity, besides proper patient positioning during and after the puncture, and they all should be adequate for the surgical objective.

Falhas na anestesia subaracnóidea: [revisão] / Failure of subarachnoid blocks: [review] / Fallos en la anestesia subaracnoide: [revisión]

Justificativa e objetivos: Desde Bier, é descrita falha de anestesia subaracnóidea que causa desconforto ao paciente e que ocorre, eventualmente, mesmo diante de profissionais hábeis que a tenham conduzido de forma tecnicamente correta. Há variação, no entanto, de conceito de falha e, principalmente, de identificação precisa de causas. O objetivo do trabalho é identificar melhor as causas deste desconforto por meio de revisão sistemática de publicações com casuística significativa. Conteúdo: Dividiu-se a análise em três tópicos: anatomia e suas variações; o agente anestésico, que trata da seleção do agente, suas soluções e adições, de forma a atingir o resultado mais apropriado à intervenção cirúrgica proposta; e a dose, discutindo-se concentração, volume ou dose gravimétrica, no sentido de obter resultado mais adequado tanto no que diz respeito à intensidade do bloqueio quanto à sua duração. Conclusões: As falhas são mais afeitas a fatores técnicos: avaliação anatômica adequada, escolha criteriosa da agulha e do local da punção, cuidados no armazenamento dos agentes, adequação de dose, baricidade, além de posicionamento correto do paciente durante e após punção, tudo adequado ao objetivo cirúrgico.

Background and objectives: Due to the discomfort caused to patients, failure of subarachnoid blocks that happen occasionally even when properly conducted be the most capable professionals have been described since Bier. However, the concept of failure and especially identification of the causes vary. The objective of this report was to identify the causes of this discomfort through a systematic review of publications with a significant number of patients. Contents: The analysis was divided in three topics: anatomy and its variations; anesthetic agent, focusing on drug selection, its solutions, and additions to achieve the most appropriate result of the proposed surgery; and the dose, discussing concentration, volume, or gravimetric dose, to obtain the most adequate result regarding the intensity of the blockade and its duration. Conclusions: Failures are more commonly secondary to technical factors: adequate anatomic assessment, judicious choice of the needle and puncture site, care when storing the drugs, dose adequacy, and baricity, besides proper patient positioning during and after the puncture, and they all should be adequate for the surgical objective.

Justificativa y objetivos: Bier ya describía los fallos en la anestesia subaracnoidea que causa la incomodidad al paciente, y que se da, eventualmente, incluso con la presencia de profesionales hábiles que la hayan conducido de forma técnicamente correcta. Existe una variación, sin embargo, del concepto de fallo y principalmente, de la identificación precisa de las causas. El objetivo del trabajo es identificar mejor las causas de esa incomodidad a través de la revisión sistemática de publicaciones con casuística significativa. Contenido: El análisis se dividió en tres tópicos: la anatomía y sus variaciones; el agente anestésico, que trata sobre la selección del agente, sus soluciones y añadiduras, para poder alcanzar el resultado más apropiado en la intervención quirúrgica que se propone ejecutar; y la dosis, discutiendo la concentración, el volumen o la dosis gravimétrica, para poder obtener el resultado más adecuado, tanto en lo concerniente a la intensidad del bloqueo, como en lo que respecta a su duración. Conclusiones: Los fallos son más inherentes a los factores técnicos: la evaluación anatómica adecuada, la elección de criterio de la aguja y del local de la punción, los cuidados en el almacenaje de los agentes, la adecuación de la dosis, la baricidad, además del posicionamiento correcto del paciente durante y después de la punción, todo a tono con el objetivo quirúrgico.

Estudo comparativo entre tratamento convencional e tratamento com heparina tópica para a analgesia de queimaduras / Comparative study of conventional and topical heparin treatments for burns analgesia

OBJETIVOS: Este estudo prospectivo, randomizado, aberto e controlado por comparador ativo teve o objetivo de avaliar a eficácia analgésica e tolerabilidade da heparina não-fracionada administrada topicamente no tratamento de queimaduras. MÉTODOS: Cinquenta e oito pacientes do sexo masculino ou feminino foram randomizados para tratamento convencional (C) ou tratamento com heparina tópica (HT). Foram incluídos pacientes com: idade entre 18 e 55 anos, queimaduras de 2º e 3º graus por fogo ou escaldo em 10 por cento a 30 por cento da superfície corpórea (SC), sem história de diáteses hemorrágicas ou hipersensibilidade à heparina e com área queimada em 3º grau menor de 10 por cento da SC. O grupo C realizou periodicamente balneoterapia terapêutica para desbridamento das lesões seguida de curativos com sulfadiazina de prata. O grupo HT realizou o primeiro desbridamento e teve suas áreas queimadas deixadas expostas para receber três vezes ao dia heparina não fracionada em spray na dose de 4200 UI para cada 1 por cento de SC queimada. A eficácia analgésica foi avaliada nos 38 pacientes que completaram o estudo pela demanda de medicamentos analgésicos e pela Escala Analógico Visual de Dor (EAV). A tolerabilidade foi avaliada nos 58 pacientes randomizados pela incidência comparativa de reações adversas nos dois grupos. RESULTADOS: O grupo HT solicitou menos analgésicos (11,83 ± 9,38 por paciente no grupo HT contra 33,35 ± 20,63 no grupo C, p<0,01), referiu menos dor pela EAV, apresentou menos febre e mais sangramento que o grupo C. Não houve diferença na incidência de infecção local, septicemia e nos exames de segurança. CONCLUSÃO: O esquema HT apresentou eficácia analgésica superior ao esquema C sem problemas importantes de tolerabilidade.

OBJECTIVE: This was a prospective, randomized, open-label study controlled by active comparator. The aim was to assess analgesic efficacy and overall tolerability of a burn treatment based on topic administration of unfractionated heparin. METHODS: Fifty eight male or female patients were randomized for conventional treatment (group C) or topical heparin treatment (group TH). Ages of patients enrolled ranged from 18 to 55 years. They had 2nd and 3rd degree burns on 10 percent to 30 percent of the body surface (BS) caused by fire or scald, no hemorrhagic diseases, no hypersensitivity to heparin and less than 10 percent of the BS burned to 3rd degree. The group C had frequent debridement under anesthesia or analgesia and received silver sulfadiazine dressings. The group TH had the first debridement and their wounds left open to receive 4200 IU of unfractionated heparin topically for each 1 percent of burned BS, three times daily. Efficacy was evaluated from files of the 38 patients who completed the study according to demand of analgesic medications and response to the pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Tolerability was evaluated from the files of all 58 randomized patients by the comparative incidence of adverse reactions. RESULTS: The group TH demanded less analgesic medications (11.83 ± 9.38 per patient against 33.35 ± 20.63 for the C group, p<0.01), reported less pain in the VAS, had less fever and more bleeding than group C. There was no difference in the incidence of local infection, septicemia and safety exams. CONCLUSION: The group TH presented less pain without important tolerability problems.