Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Middle East J Anaesthesiol ; 22(1): 11-20, 2013 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23833845

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of perioperative intravenous magnesium administration on postoperative opioid use, opioid-related side effects (e.g., nausea and vomiting) and pain are uncertain, as randomized controlled trials on this topic have reported disparate results. The objective of this systematic review is to determine if perioperative magnesium reduces opioid use, opioid-related side effects, and postoperative pain. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted using the Library of Medicine's PubMed and EMBASE databases. Included studies consisted of randomized controlled trials in an adult population with a clearly defined comparison of perioperative intravenous magnesium administration to a control with a documented assessment of opioid usage and postoperative pain. Relevant data was abstracted from included studies. Pooled estimates for weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained for our primary outcome (opioid usage) using the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan version 4.2.7 (Cochrane Collaboration; Oxford, United Kingdom). WMD and odds ratios (OR) were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: The literature search ultimately yielded 22 trials, enrolling 1177 (599 magnesium, 578 control) patients, who were included in the analysis. A significant decrease in morphine usage by those patients who received magnesium was noted (WMD = -7.40; 95% CI: -9.40 to -5.41, p < 0.00001). Perioperative magnesium administration was not associated with a difference in postoperative nausea or vomiting (RR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.09, p = 0.14). The pooled visual analog scores for pain at 4-6 hours after surgery were significantly less in those patients who received magnesium surgery (WMD = -0.67; 95% CI: -1.12 to -0.23, p = 0.003); however, there was no difference in pain scores at 20-24 hours after surgery (WMD = -0.25; 95% CI: -0.62 to 0.71, p = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this systematic review, perioperative intravenous magnesium may be a useful adjuvant for the management of postoperative pain providing analgesia through a different mechanism of action than that of opioids and would make a potential addition to a multimodal anlgesic treatment plan; however, the decrease in opioid use with perioperative magnesium infusion does not appear to be associated with a decresea in opioid-related side effects.


Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Magnésio/administração & dosagem , Morfina/administração & dosagem , Dor Pós-Operatória/tratamento farmacológico , Feminino , Humanos , Infusões Intravenosas , Masculino
2.
J Clin Anesth ; 23(2): 90-6, 2011 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21377070

RESUMO

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine if the use of ultrasound guidance (vs non-ultrasound techniques) improves the success rate of nerve blocks. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the published literature. SETTING: University medical center. MEASUREMENTS: 16 RCTs of patients undergoing elective surgical procedures were studied. Patients underwent ultrasound-guided or non-ultrasound techniques (nerve stimulation, surface landmark) for peripheral nerve blocks. Success rates were measured. MAIN RESULTS: Ultrasound guidance (vs all non-ultrasound techniques) was associated with a significant increase in the success rate of nerve blocks [relative risk (RR) = 1.11 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06 to 1.17, P < 0.0001]). When compared with nerve stimulator techniques only, ultrasound guidance was still associated with an increase in the success rate (RR = 1.11 [95% CI: 1.05 to 1.17, P = 0.0001]). For specific blocks, ultrasound guidance (vs all non-ultrasound) was associated with a significant increase in successful brachial plexus (all) nerve blocks (RR = 1.11 [95% CI: 1.05 to 1.20, P = 0.0001]), sciatic popliteal nerve block (RR = 1.22 [95% CI: 1.08 to 1.39, P = 0.002]) and brachial plexus axillary nerve block (RR = 1.13 [95% CI: 1.00 to 1.26, P = 0.05]) but not brachial plexus infraclavicular nerve block (RR = 1.25 [95% CI: 0.88 to 1.76, P = 0.22]). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block is associated with an increased overall success rate when compared with nerve stimulation or other methods. Ultrasound-guided techniques also increase the success rate of some specific blocks.


Assuntos
Anestesia por Condução/métodos , Bloqueio Nervoso/métodos , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção/métodos , Anestésicos Locais/administração & dosagem , Plexo Braquial , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Humanos , Nervos Periféricos/diagnóstico por imagem , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
3.
Urology ; 67(6): 1224-8, 2006 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16765183

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To perform a meta-analysis of available randomized trials investigating the analgesic efficacy of periprostatic block with local anesthetic. METHODS: The National Library of Medicine's PubMed database was searched for the time period 1966 to August 16, 2005 for all relevant articles. Inclusion criteria included subjects undergoing prostate biopsy, trials that were randomized with one arm of the randomization using local anesthetic for periprostatic block before prostate biopsy, and where the assessment of biopsy pain was measured and available in a form compatible for statistical analysis in our meta-analysis. RESULTS: Our search resulted in 107 abstracts, of which a total of 16 articles met all inclusion criteria. There were 660 subjects who received local anesthetics for a periprostatic block and 616 subjects who did not. The weighted mean difference between the groups indicates that subjects receiving local anesthetic periprostatic block would have a statistically lower pain score compared with those who did not (weighted mean difference in visual analogue pain of -1.66 [95% confidence interval -2.03 to -1.29]). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that periprostatic block with local anesthetic for prostate biopsy might result in significantly lower levels of pain during the biopsy procedure. Because periprostatic block with local anesthetic is relatively easy to administer and does not seem to be associated with increased morbidity, clinicians performing prostate biopsies should consider using this technique on a routine basis.


Assuntos
Analgesia/métodos , Anestesia Local/métodos , Biópsia por Agulha/efeitos adversos , Bloqueio Nervoso , Dor/etiologia , Dor/prevenção & controle , Próstata/patologia , Humanos , Masculino , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA