PubMed · 15601357
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Tsui Ban. 2004. Epidural stimulation test.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2004.01457.x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
In the present study the "fast-track rehabilitation" protocol of the Charité university hospital for patients undergoing elective colonic resection is described. The underlying principles, clinical pathways and outcome data from 208 patients are shown. Particularly anesthesiological aspects of this multimodal approach, such as modified preoperative and postoperative fluid management, changed guidelines for preoperative fasting, effective analgetic therapy using epidural analgesia and avoiding high systemic doses of opioids, use of short-acting anesthetic agents, and maintenance of normothermia as well as normovolemia are presented and discussed. In comparison to outcome data before "fast-track rehabilitation" was established, the duration of postoperative hospital stay has been reduced from 12 to 5 days, the number of general complications (pneumonia, duodenal ulcer bleeding, urinary tract infection, cerebral, cardiac and renal dysfunction) decreased from 20% to 7%, whereas surgical complications remained constant at 17% (8% wound infections, 3% anastomotic insufficiency).
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective randomized clinical trial in preemptive analgesia for postoperative pain was conducted. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of three preemptive analgesics combined with local anesthesia: continuous subcutaneous morphine (SC), continuous epidural morphine (ED), and diclofenac sodium (DS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Systemic opioids are known to be effective methods of postoperative pain control. The use of epidural morphine for postoperative analgesia has been a standard treatment in spinal surgery. Only a few studies in the literature have investigated the efficacy of preemptive analgesia using morphine. This is the first prospective randomized clinical trial to assess both subcutaneous and epidural continuous administration of opioids for preemptive analgesia. METHODS: For this study, 73 patients were assigned randomly to one of three treatment groups: SC, ED, or DS. All patients underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. Pain management was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Usage of supplemental analgesics, the time to first request of them, and side effects were also investigated. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were randomized to SC, 23 to ED, and 27 to DS. No baseline variable differences among the three groups were seen. The results showed no significant difference in analgesic effects among those three preemptive analgesics. Only immediately after surgery (at 0 hours), the VAS of the DS group was lowest among three groups. But the DS group took more supplemental analgesic drugs until 72 hours, and the time to first request of this group was shorter than that of the other two groups. High rates of minor side effects were seen in both the ED and DS groups. SC gave moderate analgesic effects as well as the other two groups with few adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: DS provided a favorable effect immediately after surgery, but the effective time was short and the patient needed more supplemental drugs after that. ED did not give the expected effect, with comparatively high rates of side effects. Continuous epidural anesthesia did not seem to be suitable for preemptive analgesia. Continuous subcutaneous morphine brought some analgesic effects with a low rate of complications. It can be an attractive method for postoperative analgesia with technical ease.
BACKGROUND: The number of women receiving neuraxial anaesthesia for labour and delivery is increasing. Women are also being discharged into the community sooner after delivery. Thus, complications arising from neuraxial anaesthesia may present to general practitioners, so it is of vital importance that they are familiar with and can manage potential problems associated with these anaesthetic techniques. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 126 local general practitioners to discover their knowledge of the symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of post dural puncture headache in the parturient. An information leaflet was then circulated to all general practitioners in the region, detailing headaches and other potential problems following epidural analgesia for childbirth, and the questionnaire was reissued. RESULTS: The first questionnaire demonstrated that they had poor knowledge of the symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of post dural puncture headache in the parturient. Following the dissemination of the information leaflet, responses to the second questionnaire showed a significant improvement. CONCLUSION: By comparing the two sets of answers, we demonstrated that the leaflet has successfully improved knowledge of post dural puncture headache and other potential sequelae of obstetric epidural analgesia among general practitioners.