Abstract:Summary
A controlled, double‐blind study was performed to compare the prior administration of intravenous saline 4 ml (n = 36), lignocaine 20 mg (n = 36) or thiopentone 100 mg (n = 43) on the pain produced by intravenous injection of propofol. One hundred and fifteen ASA 1 or 2 patients scheduled for minor surgery were studied using a randomised, double‐blind design. Thiopentone was more effective than lignocaine in reducing the incidence of propofol injection pain (p < 0.03).
This study investigated propofol injection pain in patients undergoing ambulatory anaesthesia. In a randomized, double-blind trial, 90 women were allocated to receive one of three treatments prior to induction of anaesthesia with propofol. Patients in Group C received 2 ml normal saline, Group L, 2 ml, lidocaine 2% (40 mg) and Group T, 2 ml thiopentone 2.5% (50 mg). Venous discomfort was assessed with a visual analogue scale (VAS) 5-15 sec after commencing propofol administration using an infusion pump (rate 1000 micrograms.kg-1.min-1). Loss of consciousness occurred in 60-90 sec. Visual analogue scores (mean +/- SD) during induction were lower in Groups L (3.3 +/- 2.5) and T (4.1 +/- 2.7) than in Group C (5.6 +/- 2.3); P = 0.0031. The incidence of venous discomfort was lower in Group L (76.6%; P < 0.05) than in Group C (100%) but not different from Group T (90%). The VAS scores for recall of pain in the recovery room were correlated with the VAS scores during induction (r = 0.7045; P < 0.0001). Recovery room discharge times were similar: C (75.9 +/- 19.4 min); L 73.6 +/- 21.6 min); T (77.1 +/- 18.9 min). Assessing their overall satisfaction, 89.7% would choose propofol anaesthesia again. We conclude that lidocaine reduces the incidence and severity of propofol injection pain in ambulatory patients whereas thiopentone only reduces its severity.
Purpose: To determine whether epidural lidocaine reduces the severity of propofol injection pain compared with iv lidocaine.Methods: A prospective, randomized double-blind clinical study was conducted in 120 female patients scheduled for elective gynecological laparotomy. A lumbar epidural catheter and an iv catheter placed in the cephalic vein of the non-dominant hand were used in all patients. Patients of the control group (Group C) were given epidural normal saline followed by iv normal saline then iv propofol. Patients of Group E were given epidural 2% lidocaine (0.08 mL·cm -1 ) followed by iv normal saline and then propofol. Patients of Group V were given epidural normal saline followed by iv 2% lidocaine (0.05 mL·kg -1 ) then propofol. Pain was scored as no pain=0, minimal pain=1, moderate pain=2, severe pain=3.Results: The pain scores, in group E; 1 (0-2) and group V; 2 (0-2), were significantly lower than in group C; 2 (1-3); median (25 th -75 th percentile) (P <0.001). There was no difference in pain score between groups E and V. The plasma lidocaine concentration 15 min after epidural lidocaine was 2.74 ± 0.54 µg·mL -1 , compared with 1.54 ± 0.31 µg·mL -1 at three minutes after iv lidocaine.Conclusion: Epidural and iv lidocaine equally reduced the severity of propofol injection pain despite higher lidocaine plasma concentrations in epidurally administered lidocaine.
Objectif : Déterminer si la lidocaïne, en injection péridurale comparée à l'injection iv, peut réduire la douleur causée par l'administration de propofol.
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.