Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Reg Anesth Pain Med ; 28(5): 414-7, 2003.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-14556131

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Neostigmine has shown analgesic benefit when used as an adjunct to epidural or intrathecal anesthesia and analgesia, but evidence of benefit in the peripheral nervous system is controversial. This study aimed to determine if neostigmine 1 mg added to intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) provided any advantage in terms of intraoperative anesthesia or postoperative analgesia. METHODS: We recruited 54 patients booked for hand surgery into this randomized, double-blind study. For the IVRA technique, patients were administered 3 mg/kg of 0.5% lidocaine (maximum 45 mL). The treatment group (group N) had 1 mg neostigmine added to lidocaine before dilution. The control group (group C) had no additives to the IVRA solution. At the completion of surgery and after transfer to the recovery room, patients had verbal response pain scores measured at 30 minutes, 1 hour, and 2 hours after cuff deflation. Time to first request for analgesic, side effects, and analgesic consumption at 24 hours were also recorded. RESULTS: Significantly more patients in group N had motor block at 5 and 10 minutes after injection of study solution. There were no other significant differences in sensory block onset, intraoperative anesthesia, postoperative analgesia, or adverse effects between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Neostigmine 1 mg provides no anesthetic or analgesic advantage when added to IVRA for upper limb surgery.


Assuntos
Anestesia Intravenosa , Mãos/cirurgia , Lidocaína/uso terapêutico , Neostigmina/farmacologia , Adulto , Anestésicos Locais/uso terapêutico , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Hemodinâmica/efeitos dos fármacos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Neostigmina/efeitos adversos , Medição da Dor , Parassimpatomiméticos/efeitos adversos , Parassimpatomiméticos/farmacologia , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
Reg Anesth Pain Med ; 28(2): 98-102, 2003.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-12677618

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Tourniquet pain during intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) of the upper limb is common and can limit tourniquet inflation time. We hypothesize that a forearm rescue cuff is better tolerated than the traditional rescue cuff of a double-cuff tourniquet. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and informed consent, 10 healthy unmedicated volunteers took part in a prospective, randomized, cross-over study. Following inflation of the proximal tourniquet cuff on the upper arm, a standardized IVRA with 0.5% lidocaine, 0.6 mL/kg was administered. When the volunteer complained of tourniquet pain, or at 30 minutes, the initial cuff was changed to a rescue cuff. During session A, the rescue cuff was the traditional distal cuff of the double-cuff tourniquet. During session B, a single forearm cuff was used. When the volunteer experienced the same level of tourniquet pain, the rescue cuff was deflated and the study session ended. The tourniquet time for the rescue cuff, the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and the incidence and duration of side effects were recorded. RESULTS: The forearm rescue cuff was tolerated significantly longer than the arm rescue cuff (49 +/- 15 v 29 +/- 11 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7 to 32 minutes, P

Assuntos
Anestesia por Condução/métodos , Antebraço , Torniquetes/efeitos adversos , Adulto , Estudos Cross-Over , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Medição da Dor , Estudos Prospectivos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...