SummaryA clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the postoperative analgesic efficacy and the safety of intrathecal neostigmine in patients undergoing anterior and posterior vaginoplasty under spinal anaesthesia. Thirty-six patients were randomly divided into three groups to receive: normal saline (1 ml), morphine (100 mg in 1 ml of saline) or neostigmine (100 mg in 1 ml of saline) intrathecally just before a spinal injection of hyperbaric bupivacaine (0.5%, 4 ml). The mean [SD] time to the first analgesic (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) administration was significantly prolonged by intrathecal neostigmine (10.7 [4.3] h) and morphine (15.3 [3.0] h) compared with saline (4.5 [1.0] h). The three groups also differed in the number of patients requiring subcutaneous morphine to complement the analgesia provided by the intramuscular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the mean [SD] times for their administration: eight patients in the saline group (8.0 [3.8] h), one patient in the morphine group (18 h) and two patients in the neostigmine group (8 and 12.9 h). The morphine and neostigmine groups showed similar analgesic effectiveness. The characteristics of spinal anaesthesia were not modified by intrathecal morphine or neostigmine. Severe nausea and vomiting, sweating and distress during surgery were the most obvious adverse effects of intrathecal neostigmine. On the other hand, less hypotension was observed in the neostigmine group. The usefulness of intrathecal neostigmine as the sole postoperative analgesic may be restricted by the severity of its adverse effects.
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.
A history of chemotherapy-induced nausea vomiting was a strong predictor for PONV and should be investigated as an added risk factor for PONV in the preoperative period of oncology surgery in prospective studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.