PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “ANALGESIA”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Postoperative analgesia following surgical correction for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison of continuous epidural analgesia and patient-controlled analgesia.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective comparison of postoperative continuous epidural analgesia and patient-controlled analgesia following surgical treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of continuous epidural analgesia and patient-controlled analgesia following adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The most commonly used pain management techniques are continuous epidural analgesia and patient-controlled analgesia. However, no large published reports compare them following adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. METHODS: A review was performed from 1990 to 2001 of patients undergoing primary surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Visual analog scale scores were recorded postoperatively at multiple time periods. Adverse effects related to each pain management technique were noted. RESULTS: The average of all pain scores (1.3 vs. 1.9) (P < 0.0001) and scores at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours (p < 0.001) was significantly better in the continuous epidural analgesia group when compared to the patient-controlled analgesia group. The range of pain scores (2.3 vs. 2.7) (P < 0.05) and the average maximum score was less in the continuous epidural analgesia group (2.6 vs. 3.2) (P < 0.05). The need to temporarily stop and then restart the pain management (12.3% vs. 7.0%) (P = 0.04) and premature permanent discontinuation (13.1% vs. 0.0%) (P < 0.001) was greater in the continuous epidural analgesia group than the patient-controlled analgesia group. No neurologic injuries occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Although both continuous epidural analgesia and patient-controlled analgesia provide effective pain control following surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, patients with continuous epidural analgesia had significantly better pain scores for all time periods, less fluctuations in pain, and lower maximum pain levels during the postoperative period.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

[Pain therapy after thoracoscopic interventions. Do regional analgesia techniques (intercostal block or interpleural analgesia) have advantages over intravenous patient-controlled opioid analgesia (PCA)?].

Systemic opioids and thoracic epidural analgesia are common techniques used to provide post-operative analgesia following thoracoscopy (video-assisted thoracic surgery). The aim of the present prospective randomised study was to evaluate the efficacy of two less invasive analgesic techniques, intercostal blocks (ICB) and interpleural analgesia (IPA). After approval from the ethics committee and informed consent from the patients, 36 patients scheduled for thoracoscopic surgery were randomly assigned to a group for postoperative pain management: group ICB: intercostal blocks of the segments involved with 5 ml 0.5% bupivacaine at the end of surgery and 6 h later; group IPA: interpleural analgesia with 20 ml 0.25% bupivacaine applied every 4 h using a catheter placed during surgery near the apex of the interpleural space; control group: IV-opiod-PCA with piritamide. Patients in the ICB and IPA groups had access to pain relief by PCA with piritramide as well. Additional medication for all groups if the analgesia was insufficient consisted of metamizol. There were no significant differences in piritramide consumption between the two regional analgesia groups and the control group up to the 3rd and 7th postoperative day. Up to the 7th day piritramide consumption in group ICB was 78 mg, in group IPA 75 mg and 80 mg in the control group. Patients in group ICB showed significantly less pain at rest measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS) on the 1st postoperative day (U-test, P < 0.05), but otherwise there were no statistical differences regarding pain scores. Respiratory parameters such as forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume, peak flow and the Tiffeneau test (FVC, FEV1, PF, FEV1/FVC) were reduced significantly after thoracoscopy and showed a slow recovery in all three groups without significant intergroup differences. Thoracoscopic surgery causes less and shorter lasting pain in comparison to thoracotomy. Nevertheless, effective pain management is necessary. We could not demonstrate a significant reduction in piritramide consumption for the techniques of regional analgesia tested here (ICB, IPA). We conclude that the use of these techniques is not complementary after thoracoscopy, since an opioid (PCA with piritramide) combined with a non-opioid (metamizol) resulted in satisfactory analgesia.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Postoperative analgesia after arthroscopic knee surgery: a randomized, prospective, double-blind study of intravenous regional analgesia versus intra-articular analgesia.

SUMMARY: The aim of this study was to determine the quality of postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery using preoperative intravenous regional analgesia. After initial consultation with a statistician, we allocated 36 patients randomly and double-blind to 1 of 3 groups. Group A received intravenous regional analgesia preoperatively, group B received standard postperative intra-articular analgesia, and group C received saline and acted as the placebo. Our results showed no statistically significant difference in pain levels between the groups. However, there was a significantly larger amount of morphine administered by patient-controlled pumps in the placebo group when compared with the 2 treatment groups. There was no such difference between the 2 treatment groups. We concluded that preoperative regional analgesia in this setting is as good as but no better than intra-articular analgesia and that neither technique has any advantages over diclofenac plus patient-controlled analgesia.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗
PubMed1999

[Obstetric analgesia: peridural analgesia versus combined spinal and peridural analgesia].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the analgesic efficiency, side effects and obstetrical repercussions of epidural analgesia (EP) and combined spinal-epidural analgesia (CSE). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double or single-blind studies as required, approved by the ethical committee of the institution. PATIENTS: The study included 80 parturients, in active labour with a singleton in vertex presentation and a cervical dilatation of 3 cm or less, randomly allocated to receive either EP (n = 40) or CSE (n = 40). METHOD: In the EP group, sufentanil (20 micrograms) and 0.25% bupivacaine (6-8 mL) were injected into the epidural space. In those of the CSE group, sufentanil (10 micrograms) was first injected into the subarachnoid space, followed by an epidural injection of the same agents at the same quantities as for the EP group. Additional analgesia was obtained in both groups by top-ups of 6-8 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine at the request of the patients. Analgesia, course of labour, obstetrical outcome, and neonatal status were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using Anova, chi 2 analysis, Yates' correction or Fisher's exact test, with a P < 0.05 considered as significant. RESULTS: Both groups had similar demographic and obstetric data. The onset of analgesia was more rapid in CSE group (8 +/- 11 min vs. 12 +/- 7 min, P < 0.05), however the duration was similar. Technical incidents were more frequent in the CSE group (30% vs. 7%, P < 0.05). The technique of analgesia did not influence the bupivacaine amounts required for its maintenance. The incidence of adverse effects were comparable with the exception of vertigo, which was more frequent in the EP group (57% vs. 28%, P < 0.05). The first stage of labour was increased by 30% in the CSE group (281 +/- 130 min vs. 216 +/- 97 min, P < 0.05), without significant prolongation of labour length. Durations of second stage and expulsion were similar in both groups, despite the administration of a lower dose of bupivacaine in the CSE group (33 +/- 17 mg vs. 46 +/- 12 mg, P < 0.05). The rates of instrumental deliveries and Caesarien sections were comparable. The Apgar scores were satisfactory at 5 min. CONCLUSION: In the early phase of labour, the CSE technique using intrathecal sufentanil has no significant benefit when compared to the EP technique using bupivacaine and sufentanil. In the CSE group, technical incidents were more frequent and the length of the first stage of labour was increased.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Comparison of ropivacaine-fentanyl patient-controlled epidural analgesia with morphine intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for perioperative analgesia and recovery after open colon surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of ropivacaine-fentanyl patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with morphine intravenous (IV) patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. SETTING: Five university-affiliated hospitals. PATIENTS: 41 patients undergoing colon surgery. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive either standardized combined epidural/general anesthesia followed by PCEA with ropivacaine 0.2% and fentanyl (2 microg/mL) or standardized general anesthesia followed by morphine IV PCA. All patients participated in a standardized postoperative clinical pathway. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Analgesia was assessed with visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Postoperative recovery was assessed by completion of prospectively defined discharge milestones and time until discharge. Statistical analyses included nonparametric and contingency table analyses. The PCEA group had better analgesia (> 50% reduction in pain scores, assessed both at rest and during a cough) for the first 3 days after surgery (p < 0.0,005). The PCEA group achieved discharge milestones approximately 36 hours faster (p < 0.002), but time until discharge was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine-fentanyl PCEA provides superior analgesia, reduced opioid requirement, and more rapid recovery after colon surgery.

Amides↗
PubMed1991

Stress analgesia: the opioid analgesia of long swims suppresses the non-opioid analgesia induced by short swims in mice.

In mice, room temperature swimming for as short a period as 15 sec has been found to induce a non-opioid analgesia with a time course of 10-12 min. As the duration of the swim is increased, an opioid analgesia develops with a longer persistence (25-30 min); the development of the opioid analgesia appears to suppress the expression of the non-opioid analgesia so that none of the latter is evident after 3 min swims. The characteristics of the tail-flick nociceptive test are also described.

Analgesia↗
PubMed1998

New epidural techniques for labour analgesia: patient-controlled epidural analgesia and combined spinal-epidural analgesia.

Epidural analgesia in labour aims to provide high-quality pain relief of rapid onset and prolonged duration, while minimizing both maternal side-effects, particularly impairment of mobility, and impact on the fetus or on the outcome of labour. In conjunction with pharmacological research on spinal analgesics (local anaesthetics, opioids and other drug classes), refinement of new or established drug delivery techniques has allowed progress toward more reliable and improved pain relief at all stages of labour and childbirth, reduced individual drug doses with reduction of unwanted effects and greater safety and enhancement of maternal satisfaction. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia in labour has been in use for almost a decade, although is only now at a stage where its role is well defined and utility can be increased. Combined spinal-epidural analgesia is a more recent refinement which appears to be extremely promising but awaits further investigation.

Analgesia, Epidural↗
PubMed2001

[Clinical assessment of the effect of intravenous patient controlled intravenous analgesia and epidural patient controlled epidural analgesia in postoperative analgesia].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effect and side-effect of intravenous patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) with patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). METHODS: Two hundred and forty postoperative patients, who were randomly divided into three groups: group PCIA, group PCEA and control, 80 cases for each group, and the recovery of bowel movement, urinary retention, nausea, vomiting, pruritus, respiratory depression, postpartum hemorrhage, lactation and recovery of uterus were observed after operation. RESULTS: Overall patients in two PCA groups were satisfied with the postoperative analgesia. The incidence of urinary retention in group PCIA were significantly lower than that in group PCEA(P < 0.05). The recovery of bowel movement in group PCEA (17.51 +/- 10.33) was much bigger than that in group PCIA (28.70 +/- 16.36) (P < 0.05). There were no remarkable differences between two PCA groups in nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression and pruritus (P > 0.05). There were no remarkable differences between two PCA groups and control in the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage, lactation and recovery of uterus. CONCLUSIONS: Both PCIA and PCEA have excellent analgesic effect. PCIA has lower incidence of urinary retention, and has higher sedative incidence compared with PCEA.

Analgesia, Epidural↗
PubMed2006

Postoperative analgesia after major spine surgery: patient-controlled epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Spinal fusion surgery causes severe postoperative pain, hampering reconvalescense. We investigated the efficacy of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) in a prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled comparison with patient-controlled IV analgesia (PCIA). METHODS: After lumbar anterior-posterior fusion receiving an epidural catheter intraoperatively, 72 patients were given either PCEA (ropivacaine 0.125% and sufentanil 1.0 microg/mL at 14 mL/h; bolus: 5 mL; lockout time: 15 min) and IV placebo or PCIA (morphine 2.0 mg/mL; bolus: 3 mg; lockout time: 15 min) and epidural placebo. Pain levels (visual analog scale 0-10), functional capabilities (turning in bed, standing, and walking), analgesic consumption, and side effects were evaluated until 72 h after surgery. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were excluded by predetermined criteria, leaving 58 patients for data analysis. Pain levels at rest and during mobilization were significantly lower in the PCEA when compared with that in the PCIA group throughout the study period (P < 0.0001 in all cases). Time until able to turn in bed was achieved earlier in the PCEA group (P < 0.05). Patients in the PCEA group were significantly more satisfied with pain therapy (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: We conclude that PCEA with ropivacaine and sufentanil, using intraoperatively placed epidural catheters, provides superior analgesia and higher patient satisfaction when compared with PCIA after spinal fusion surgery.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

A comparison of intrathecal morphine/fentanyl and patient-controlled analgesia with patient-controlled analgesia alone for analgesia after liver resection.

Continuous epidural anesthesia and analgesia may be considered in liver resection, but is often avoided because of the potential development of coagulopathies and the risk of epidural hematoma. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study we compared postoperative morphine consumption via patient-controlled analgesia after liver surgery between two groups of patients: patients receiving a preoperative dose of intrathecal morphine (0.5 mg) and fentanyl (15 microg) (treatment group) and patients receiving a sham intrathecal injection (placebo group). Forty patients scheduled for major liver resection (> or = two segments) were enrolled. The primary outcome measure was patient-controlled analgesia morphine consumption. Secondary outcomes were evaluation of pain at rest and with movement, scored on a visual analog scale with assessment of sedation, nausea, pruritus, and respiratory frequency. Outcome measures were recorded at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 48 h postspinal anesthesia or simulation. Patients in the placebo group consumed approximately three times more morphine during each time interval than patients in the treatment group (at 48 h: 124 +/- 30 vs 47 +/- 21 mg, P < 0.0001). Pain evaluation on the visual analog scale was lower for the first 18 h in the treatment group. There was no difference in the incidence of side effects in both groups. Intrathecal morphine (0.5 mg) and fentanyl (15 microg) given before liver surgery significantly decreased postoperative morphine consumption compared to placebo without any increase in side effects.

Analgesia, Patient-Controlled↗
PubMed1997

Patient-controlled analgesia after major shoulder surgery: patient-controlled interscalene analgesia versus patient-controlled analgesia.

BACKGROUND: The authors compared patient-controlled interscalene analgesia (PCIA) with local anesthetics with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with opioids to manage postoperative pain after major shoulder surgery. METHODS: Forty patients scheduled for elective major shoulder surgery were prospectively randomized to receive either PCIA or PCA. Before surgery, all patients had an interscalene block. In the PCIA group, a catheter was introduced within the interscalene sheath. Six hours after the initial block, patients received for 48 h either a continuous infusion of 0.15% bupivacaine through the interscalene catheter at a rate of 5 ml/h plus a bolus of 3 or 4 ml with a lock-time of 20 min (group PCLA) or a continuous intravenous infusion of nicomorphine at a rate of 0.5 mg/h plus a bolus of 2 or 3 mg with a lock-time of 20 min (group PCA). Pain relief was regularly assessed using a visual analog scale, side effects were noted, and the patients were asked to rate their satisfaction at the end of the study. RESULTS: Pain relief was significantly better controlled in the PCIA group at t = 12 and 18 h (P < 0.05). Vomiting and pruritus were 0 versus 25% and 0 versus 25% for the PCIA and PCA groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was greater in the PCIA group (P < 0.05). Time of first bolus administration and paracetamol supplement were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the PCIA technique was uncomplicated and provided better pain relief than PCA during the first 18 h after operation. The incidence of side effects such as vomiting and pruritus was significantly decreased with the use of PCIA, and patient satisfaction was superior in the PCIA group.

Analgesia, Patient-Controlled↗
PubMed2002

Cesarean delivery: a randomized trial of epidural analgesia versus intravenous meperidine analgesia during labor in nulliparous women.

BACKGROUND: Controversy concerning increased cesarean births as a result of epidural analgesia for relief of labor pain has been attributed, in large part, to difficulties interpreting published studies because of design flaws. In this study, the authors compared epidural analgesia to intravenous meperidine analgesia using patient-controlled devices during labor to evaluate the effects of labor epidural analgesia, primarily on the rate of cesarean deliveries while minimizing limitations attributable to study design. METHODS: Four hundred fifty-nine nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term were randomly assigned to receive either epidural analgesia or intravenous meperidine analgesia. Epidural analgesia was initiated with 0.25% bupivacaine and was maintained with 0.0625% bupivacaine and fentanyl 2 microg/ml at 6 ml/h with 5-ml bolus doses every 15 min as needed using a patient-controlled pump. Women in the intravenous analgesia group received 50 mg meperidine with 25 mg promethazine hydrochloride as an initial bolus, followed by 15 mg meperidine every 10 min as needed, using a patient-controlled pump. A written procedural manual that prescribed the intrapartum obstetric management was followed for each woman randomized in the study. RESULTS: A total of 226 women were randomized to receive epidural analgesia, and 233 women were randomized to receive intravenous meperidine analgesia. Protocol violations occurred in 8% (38 of 459) of women. There was no difference in the rate of cesarean deliveries between the two analgesia groups (epidural analgesia, 7% [16 of 226; 95% confidence interval, 4-11%] vs. intravenous meperidine analgesia, 9% [20 of 233; 95% confidence interval, 5-13%]; P = 0.61). Significantly more women randomized to epidural analgesia had forceps deliveries compared with those randomized to meperidine analgesia (12% [26 of 226] vs. 3% [7 of 233]; P < 0.001). Women who received epidural analgesia reported lower pain scores during labor and delivery compared with women who received intravenous meperidine analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural analgesia compared with intravenous meperidine analgesia during labor does not increase cesarean deliveries in nulliparous women.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Intrathecal sufentanil and fetal heart rate abnormalities: a double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial comparing two forms of combined spinal epidural analgesia with epidural analgesia in labor.

UNLABELLED: Combined spinal epidural analgesia (CSE) for labor pain relief has become increasingly popular. However, the effect of intrathecal sufentanil on the incidence of uterine hyperactivity and fetal heart rate (FHR) abnormalities remains controversial. We hypothesized that the use of intrathecal sufentanil in a dose of 7.5 microg is more likely to induce a nonreassuring FHR tracing than a small dose of spinal sufentanil combined with bupivacaine or epidural analgesia. Three-hundred parturients were randomized into three groups. In the first group, epidural analgesia was initiated with 12.5 mg of bupivacaine, 12.5 microg of epinephrine, and 7.5 microg of sufentanil in a volume of 10 mL (EPD group). In Group 2, initial intrathecal analgesia consisted of 2.5 mg of bupivacaine, 2.5 microg of epinephrine, and 1.5 microg of sufentanil (BSE group); in Group 3, spinal analgesia consisted of 7.5 microg of sufentanil (SUF group). Analgesia was maintained in all groups with patient-controlled epidural analgesia using bupivacaine 0.125%, 1.25 microg/mL of epinephrine, and 0.75 microg/mL of sufentanil (bolus, 4 mL; lockout, 15 min). Cardiotocography was monitored continuously 15 min before analgesia and for 60 min after the start of analgesia. The quality of analgesia, labor, and neonatal outcome and side effects were recorded. Twenty-four percent of patients in the SUF group developed FHR abnormalities (bradycardia or late decelerations) during the first hour after initiation of analgesia compared with 12% in the BSE group and 11% in the EPD group. Uterine hyperactivity occurred in 12% of parturients in the SUF group but in only 2% in the other groups. Onset of analgesia was more rapid in both CSE groups as compared with the EPD group. However, 29% of patients in the BSE group developed severe hypotension, requiring IV ephedrine (29% in the BSE group versus 7% and 12% in the EPD and SUF groups, respectively). All these differences reached statistical significance. The present data corroborate previous recommendations of caution when performing CSE using a large dose (7.5 microg or more) of spinal sufentanil because of the risk of uterine hyperactivity and FHR abnormalities. IMPLICATIONS: Combined spinal epidural analgesia (CSE) produces pain relief during labor. Fetal heart rate changes after CSE using intrathecal sufentanil have been reported. We performed a randomized, blinded trial confirming that fetal heart rate changes are more frequent after CSE using 7.5 micro g of intrathecal sufentanil as compared with other forms of neuraxial labor analgesia.

Adult↗
PubMed1994

A permissive role of corticosterone in an opioid form of stress-induced analgesia: blockade of opiate analgesia is not due to stress-induced hormone release.

The 100 inescapable tail-shock paradigm produces three sequential analgesic states as the number of shocks increases: an early opioid analgesia (after 2 shocks) that is attenuated by systemic naltrexone, a middle analgesia (after 5-40 shocks) that is unaffected by systemic naltrexone, and a late opioid analgesia (after 80-100 shocks) that is attenuated by systemic naltrexone. In order to determine whether the absence of adrenal hormones would affect any of these analgesias, we tested adrenalectomized (ADX) versus sham-operated control rats 2 weeks post-surgery. Pain threshold was assessed using the tail-flick (TF) test. ADX attenuated both the early (2 shock) and late (80-100 shock) opiate analgesias and failed to reduce the naltrexone-insensitive analgesia after 5-40 shocks. We demonstrated that a loss of adrenomedullary catecholamines does not underlie the ADX-induced attenuation of opioid analgesia since sympathetic blockade using systemic chlorisondamine (6 mg/kg) failed to reduce analgesia at any point in the shock session. It was further shown that stress levels of adrenal hormones are not critical since (a) analgesia was unaffected when animals were tested 48 h after ADX, (b) 2 shocks do not produce a surge in corticosterone (CORT) over and above levels observed in animals restrained and TF tested in preparation for shock, and (c) basal CORT replacement in drinking water fully restored analgesia in ADX rats. These experiments demonstrate that basal CORT, rather than adrenomedullary substances, is critical to the expression of analgesia. The function of CORT here is not linked to a shock-induced surge of the steroid. CORT appears to play a permissive role in the expression of analgesia. Potential effects of the absence of corticosteroids on neurotransmitter biosynthesis important in analgesia production are discussed.

Adrenal Medulla↗
PubMed1997

Epidural analgesia compared with combined spinal-epidural analgesia during labor in nulliparous women.

BACKGROUND: Among nulliparous women, there appears to be an association between the use of epidural analgesia during labor and an increased risk of dystocia. We tested the hypothesis that combined spinal-epidural analgesia, which permits ambulation during labor, is associated with a lower incidence of dystocia than continuous lumbar epidural analgesia. METHODS: Between July 1995 and September 1996, we randomly assigned 761 nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term who requested epidural analgesia to receive either continuous lumbar epidural analgesia or a combination of spinal and epidural analgesia. Among the women who received combined spinal-epidural analgesia, some were discouraged from walking and others were encouraged to walk. Maternal and neonatal outcomes, the incidence of dystocia necessitating cesarean section, and measures of patients' satisfaction were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the overall rate of cesarean section, the incidence of dystocia, the frequency of maternal or fetal complications, the patients' or nursing staff's assessment of the adequacy of analgesia, or the degree of overall satisfaction between the two groups. Significantly more women receiving combined spinal-epidural analgesia had pruritus (P<0.001) and requested additional epidural bolus doses of local anesthetic (P=0.01). For all the women, dystocia necessitating cesarean section was significantly more likely when analgesia was administered with the fetal vertex at a negative station (odds ratio, 2.5; P<0.001) or at less than 4 cm of cervical dilatation (odds ratio, 2.2; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with continuous lumbar epidural analgesia, the combination of spinal and epidural analgesia is not associated with an overall decrease in the incidence of cesarean delivery.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Efficacy of postoperative patient-controlled and continuous infusion epidural analgesia versus intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with opioids: a meta-analysis.

The authors performed a meta-analysis and found that epidural analgesia overall provided superior postoperative analgesia compared with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. For all types of surgery and pain assessments, all forms of epidural analgesia (both continuous epidural infusion and patient-controlled epidural analgesia) provided significantly superior postoperative analgesia compared with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia, with the exception of hydrophilic opioid-only epidural regimens. Continuous epidural infusion provided statistically significantly superior analgesia versus patient-controlled epidural analgesia for overall pain, pain at rest, and pain with activity; however, patients receiving continuous epidural infusion had a significantly higher incidence of nausea-vomiting and motor block but lower incidence of pruritus. In summary, almost without exception, epidural analgesia, regardless of analgesic agent, epidural regimen, and type and time of pain assessment, provided superior postoperative analgesia compared to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia.

Analgesia, Epidural↗
PubMed1997

Reversal of spinal cord non-opiate analgesia by conditioned anti-analgesia in the rat.

The spinal cord contains endogenous substances (such as cholecystokinin, FMRFamide, etc.) that can block the analgesic effects of opiates. Anti-opiate actions have been most commonly studied by exogenous administration of receptor agonists and receptor antagonists of these substances. However, we have recently demonstrated that anti-analgesia can be brought under environmental control through Pavlovian conditioning. Whereas analgesia can be conditioned to signals for danger, anti-analgesia can be conditioned to signals for safety. Using this paradigm, we have previously demonstrated that conditioned anti-analgesia can reverse a variety of opiate analgesic states, including those produced by conditioned danger signals, systemic morphine, and intrathecal mu- and delta-opiate receptor agonists. These data raise the question of the generality of anti-analgesia actions. The present series of experiments examined the ability of conditioned anti-analgesia to affect non-opiate analgesic states induced by spinal delivery of GABA(A), GABA(B), 5HT2 + 5HT1, and 5HT3 receptor agonists. While conditioned anti-analgesia had no effect on GABA(A) or 5HT2 + 5HT1 non-opiate analgesias, conditioned anti-analgesia completely blocked GABA(B) and 5HT3 non-opiate analgesias. These findings clearly demonstrate that conditioned anti-analgesia can powerfully modulate non-opiate as well as opiate analgesias and bring into question whether putative anti-opiate neuroactive substances may have broader actions than previously suggested.

Analgesia, Epidural↗