IntroductionDespite developments in the pathophysiology and treatment of pain, increased knowledge of pain management, the availability of new drugs, and complex drug delivery systems, the pain management of many patients after surgery remains inadequate. Studies have shown that successful postoperative analgesia after surgery prevents many side effects of pain, such as the inability to breathe at ease, the increase in the workload of the cardiovascular system, the development of thromboembolic events due to a delay in the mobilization of patient, and the increase in stress response due to the activation of the sympathetic nervous and neuroendocrine systems (1,2). Inadequate treatment of acute pain is the most common cause of chronic pain after surgery. The aim after surgery is to ensure that organ functioning returns to normal quickly by controlling pain as soon as possible (3).Today it is possible to achieve successful postoperative analgesia by selecting appropriate methods/routes of administration, agents, dosages, and dosage ranges. Opioids are the most widely used group of drugs in the treatment of postoperative pain due to their strong analgesic activities. However, opioid-related nausea, vomiting, pruritus, urinary retention, respiratory depression, sedation, and central nervous system depression have accelerated the search for analgesic drugs with better pain relief efficacy and fewer side effects (4).Research has reported gastric irritation, erosion, bleeding, and inhibition of platelet aggregation with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), in addition to adverse effects on the secretion of uric acid and bleeding (5), thereby restricting their use. Side effects, such as systemic toxicity and prolonged sensory and motor responses, have also been reported with local anesthetic drugs used to provide pain control (6). Tramadol, a weak, effective synthetic opioid, has been shown to have relatively few side effects compared to other opioids, and its abuse or addiction potential is negligible (7). Paracetamol is a Background/aim: To compare the postoperative analgesic efficacy and side effects of paracetamol and tramadol in patients undergoing lumbar disc surgery. Materials and methods: Group P (paracetamol group) was given 1 g of paracetamol intravenously 30 min before the end of the operation and 1 g each day at 6-h intervals. Group T (tramadol group) was given 1.5 mg/kg of tramadol as a loading dose and patient-controlled analgesia for 1 day. Hemodynamic parameters, modified Aldrete score, Ramsay sedation scale score, patient satisfaction scale (PSS) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, nausea/vomiting scale score, and additional analgesic needs/times were recorded.Results: PSS scores were significantly higher in Group T (P < 0.05). The total analgesic consumption was significantly higher in Group P. There were no significant differences in the VAS scores at any time points. Twenty-one patients in Group P and 8 patients in Group T needed additional analgesia (P < 0.05). The first additional analg...
Amaç: Zor entübasyon olabileceği mallampati testi ile önceden tahmin edilen hastalarda Storz DCI video laringoskop ile Truview EVO2 video laringoskopu glottik görüntü kalitesi, entübasyon süresi, entübasyona bağlı ve postoperatif erken komplikasyonlar ile entübasyon sonrası gelişen hemodinamik yanıt yönünden karşılaştırmayı amaçladık. Yöntem: Çalışmaya 18-65 yaş arasında değişen ASA(American Society of Anaesthesiologists) I-II, mallampati skoru (MPS) III-IV olan 60 hasta dahil edildi. Hastalar rastgele 30'arlı iki gruba ayrıldı. Grup S ve Grup T sırasıyla Storz DCI videolaringoskop ve Truview EVO2 videolaringoskop kullanılarak entübe edildi. Cormack-Lehanne skorları(CLS), entübasyon süresi, entübasyona bağlı ve postoperatif erken komplikasyonlar kaydedildi. Perioperatif kalp atım hızı, sistolik arter basıncı, diyastolik arter basıncı, ortalama arter basıncı, periferik oksijen satürasyonu, indüksiyondan önce, indüksiyondan sonra, entübasyondan hemen sonra, entübasyondan sonraki 1., 2., 3., 4. ve 5. dakikalarda kaydedildi. Endtidal karbondioksit (ETCO2) ise entübasyondan hemen ve sonraki dakikalarda kaydedildi. Bulgular: Her iki grupta glottik görüntü kalitesi karşılaştırıldığında CLS grade I ve II'de, anlamlı fark bulunmazken, CLS grade III Grup T'de anlamlı olarak daha fazla gözlenmiştir. Grup S'de sadece 1 hastada CLS skor III ile karşılaşılırken, Grup T'de ise 6 hastada karşılaşıldı. Entübasyon süresi Grup T'de (36 sn) Grup S'e (31 sn) göre anlamlı uzun bulınmuştur ve bütün entübasyonlar her iki grupta başarıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Hemodinamik parametreler ve antihipertansif medikasyon açısından iki grup arasında anlamlı fark bulunmadı. Sonuç: Storz DCI video laringoskop entübasyon süresini kısaltarak ve daha net glottik görünüm sağlamıştır. Bu nedenle entübasyon güçlüklerinde Storz DCI video laringoskopun Truview EVO2 video laringoskopa tercih edebileceği kanısına varıldı.Objective: We intended to compare Storz DCI, and Truview EVO2 videolaryngoscopes with respect to the quality of glottis images, intubation times, intubation-related, and postoperative early stage complications, and hemodynamic responses developed following intubation in cases resistant to intubation as predicted by Mallampati tests. Method: The study included 60 patients aged between 18-65 years with ASA (American Society of Anaesthesiologists) I-II, Mallampati score (MPS) III-IV. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. Groups S, and T were intubated using Storz DCI, and Truview EVO2 video laryngosopes, respectively. Cormack-Lehanne score (CLS), intubation time, intubation-related, and immediate postoperative complications were recorded. Perioperative heart rate, systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures, peripheral oxygen saturation measured before, and after induction, immediately, 1., 2., 3., 4., and 5. minutes after intubation were recorded. Also, endtidal carbondioxide was noted immediately after intubation. Results: In both groups, any significant difference was not found between CLS grade I, and II as for th...
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.