Search

A prospective randomized controlled study was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in patients undergoing thoracotomy. This method was compared with a conventional pain management technique consisting of regularly scheduled im injections of analgesics. Forty adult patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous PCA or im meperidine treatment over a 48-hr period after surgery. Care was taken to optimize analgesia in patients of both groups. The McGill Pain Questionnaire, visual analogue and verbal-numeric scales were administered at regular intervals to measure various components of the patients' pain experience, degree of pain relief, adverse side effects and overall treatment efficacy. Functional recovery after surgery was also examined. The results showed good and comparable analgesia with both pain-control methods. However, a greater number of patients receiving im injections required dosage adjustments than in the PCA group. Patients' and nurses' evaluations of overall treatment efficacy also favoured PCA treatment. There were no major group differences in the side effect profile. Recovery pattern was also comparable in the two groups except for the length of hospitalisation. There were fewer long-stay patients in the PCA than in the im group. Meperidine intake was similar in both groups but considerable interpatient variation was seen. In conclusion, PCA is a safe, effective and individualized treatment method for controlling pain after thoracotomy. There appears to be some clinical advantages of PCA over im dosing regimens for analgesia after thoracotomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A prospective randomized controlled study was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in patients undergoing thoracotomy. This method was compared with a conventional pain management technique consisting of regularly scheduled im injections of analgesics. Forty adult patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous PCA or im meperidine treatment over a 48-hr period after surgery. Care was taken to optimize analgesia in patients of both groups. The McGill Pain Questionnaire, visual analogue and verbal-numeric scales were administered at regular intervals to measure various components of the patients' pain experience, degree of pain relief, adverse side effects and overall treatment efficacy. Functional recovery after surgery was also examined. The results showed good and comparable analgesia with both pain-control methods. However, a greater number of patients receiving im injections required dosage adjustments than in the PCA group. Patients' and nurses' evaluations of overall treatment efficacy also favoured PCA treatment. There were no major group differences in the side effect profile. Recovery pattern was also comparable in the two groups except for the length of hospitalisation. There were fewer long-stay patients in the PCA than in the im group. Meperidine intake was similar in both groups but considerable interpatient variation was seen. In conclusion, PCA is a safe, effective and individualized treatment method for controlling pain after thoracotomy. There appears to be some clinical advantages of PCA over im dosing regimens for analgesia after thoracotomy.

Fifty-three unpremedicated outpatients undergoing elective extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy using an unmodified Dornier HM-3 lithotriptor received one of two different intravenous sedation-analgesia techniques. Both intravenous midazolam-alfentanil and fentanyl-propofol techniques produced conditions comparable to those achieved with epidural anesthesia during immersion lithotripsy. Of the two sedative-analgesic techniques, midazolam-alfentanil was associated with greater intraoperative amnesia (81% vs 38%), whereas fentanyl-propofol produced less cardiorespiratory depression and fewer postoperative side effects (e.g., pruritus). Compared with a standard epidural anesthesia technique, the mean anesthesia and recovery times were significantly shorter with the two intravenous sedation-analgesia techniques (57-62 min vs 105 min and 143-147 min vs 199 min, respectively). These data suggest that combinations of either midazolam and alfentanil or fentanyl and propofol are viable alternatives to epidural anesthesia for outpatient immersion lithotripsy.