ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Women undergoing hysterectomy present a unique set of challenges to the anesthesiologist in terms of postoperative pain management. This study was conducted to see the effect of single-dose perioperative duloxetine 60 mg on postoperative analgesia following abdominal hysterectomy under spinal anesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective randomized placebo-controlled study was conducted on 64 patients scheduled to undergo elective abdominal hysterectomy under spinal anesthesia. The patients were divided into two groups of 32 in each, Group D received duloxetine 60 mg 2 h preoperatively and Group P received placebo 2 h preoperatively. Postoperatively, the patients were evaluated by an independent observer for pain on rest and during cough at 0 (arrival at postanesthesia care unit), 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h. In addition, the postoperative analgesic requirements and adverse effects were noted. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Independent t-test/Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare the pain score between two groups. RESULTS: The demographic data were comparable between both the groups. The mean Visual Analogue Scale scores assessed postoperatively at rest and during cough which were not statistically significant between the two groups. The rescue analgesic consumption in Group D (0.97 ± 0.86) and Group P (1.25 ± 0.76) was comparable and statistically not significant. The total analgesic requirement between duloxetine (4.94 ± 0.84) and placebo (1.25 ± 0.76) group was comparable and statistically not significant. The incidence of nausea vomiting and somnolence was higher in Group D. CONCLUSION: We conclude that patients receiving a single dose of 60 mg duloxetine as premedication before hysterectomy under spinal anesthesia are no better than placebo on postoperative pain during the first 24 h.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Spinal anesthesia is a safe anesthetic technique commonly practiced. However, it is associated with hypotension (33%), bradycardia (13%), and shivering which are induced by hypovolemia, sympathetic blockade, and Bezold-Jarisch reflex through intracardiac serotonin (5HT3) receptors and vagus nerve. AIM: To study the effect of intravenous (i.v.) ondansetron on hypotension and bradycardia induced by spinal anesthesia. SETTING AND DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled double-blinded study done in a tertiary care teaching hospital. METHODS: Of 140 patients, 70 in Group A received 2 mL of i.v. ondansetron 4 mg and 70 in the Group B received 2 mL of i.v. normal saline. 3 mL of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine was injected intrathecally. Measurements of blood pressure and heart rate (HR) were taken every 3 min for 30 min after spinal anesthesia was performed. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) drop more than 20% was considered as incidence of hypotension and ephedrine 6 mg i.v. was given. HR drop >20% was regarded as bradycardia and atropine 0.5 mg i.v. was given. STATISTICAL TESTS: Quantitative data were analyzed using ANOVA test and qualitative data were analyzed using Chi-square test. RESULTS: Both groups are comparable in demographic data. Four (5.7%) patients in Group B and no patients in Group A had incidence of bradycardia and atropine requirement (P = 0.120). There was no statistically significant difference in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and MAP. 19 (27%) patients in Group A and 33 (47.1%) in Group B required ephedrine with P = 0.029. 12 (17.1%) in Group B and no patients in Group A had shivering with P = 0.0001. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that prophylactic use of ondansetron before spinal anesthesia significantly reduces the requirement of ephedrine and shivering.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Establishing an intravenous access is indispensable for safe administration of anesthesia. Most of the times, it is executed without any analgesia although the pain associated with this procedure is quite agonizing to the patients. AIMS: This study aims to evaluate the role of 3 different nonpharmacological measures such as Valsalva maneuver, flash of light, and distraction method in attenuation of pain during venous cannulation. DESIGN: A clinical randomized controlled study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred patients of either sex, aged between 18 and 65 years, posted for elective surgery were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly allocated into four groups, Group C-control, Group V (valsalva) - blew into sphygmomanometer raising the mercury column up to 30 mm of Hg, Group D (distraction) - pressed a rubber ball and Group L (light) - photographed with a flash of light before venous cannulation. During the process of cannulation, patients were observed and questioned, and pain was graded using a 4- point scale. After the cannulation, pain during the procedure was also assessed using visual analog scale (VAS) score. Data analysis was done using SPSS statistical package version 17. RESULTS: A significant reduction in the incidence of pain was noted in distraction group 36% as compared to 44% in Group L, 46% in Group V, and 100% in the control group. The severity of pain as assessed by 4-point score was significantly lowest in Group D (0.26 ± 0.53) as compared to other three groups (Group V and L = 0.54 ± 0.16, Group C = 1.64 ± 0.6, P < 0.001). Mean VAS score was significantly low in Group D (0.6 ± 1.11) and Group L (0.54 ± 1.06) as compared to Group V (1.26 ± 1.76) and Group C (5.0 ± 1.21, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We conclude that distraction can be considered as a diligent, reasonable, and simple method to attenuate procedural pain during peripheral venous cannulation.
