A Single Dose of Intrathecal Morphine Without Local Anesthetic Provides Long-Lasting Postoperative Analgesia After Radical Prostatectomy and Nephrectomy.

PURPOSE: Pain after open urological procedures is often intense. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of intrathecal morphine with systemic analgesia approaches. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, single-blind controlled study. METHODS: Patients undergoing open prostatectomy or nephrectomy were randomly divided into the intervention group or the control group. Patients in the intervention group received morphine 250 mcg in 2.5 mL saline intrathecally. Anesthesia was identical in both groups. All patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) postoperative and received paracetamol 1 g intravenously every 6 hours and diclofenac 75 mg intramuscularly every 12 hours. If postoperative pain exceeded four on the numeric rating scale, morphine 10 mg was administered subcutaneously. Pain intensity, time to first dose of morphine, morphine doses, and side effects were recorded. FINDINGS: In total, 41 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 57 to the control group. The time to administration of the first dose of morphine was significantly (P < .001) longer in the intervention group when compared to controls. This observation was also noted individually for patients undergoing nephrectomy (36.86 hours vs 4.06 hours) and prostatectomy (33.13 hours vs 4.5 hours). Many patients did not need opioids after surgery in the intervention group (nephrectomy 72% vs 3%, prostatectomy 75% vs 4.5%, P < .001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of side effects. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study confirmed that preoperative intrathecal morphine provides long-lasting analgesia and reduces the need for postoperative systemic administration of opioids. Adverse effects are minor and comparable between groups.

The influence of clonidine on oral ketamine-midazolam premedication in intellectually disabled patients indicated for dental procedures: double-blind comparison of two sedation regimes.

BACKGROUND: Dental procedures on intellectually disabled patients represent a clinical challenge. The oral administration of sedating drugs can remediate the problems with cooperation and enable the medical procedures to take place. Standard guidelines are lacking for oral sedation of the intellectually disabled. OBJECTIVE: To compare two oral combinations of sedating drugs in terms of time to the onset and achievement of full sedation, vital signs, behavioral measures and safety. METHODS: In a group of 29 intellectually disabled patients we compared two oral combinations for analgosedation: ketamine (5 mg/kg) - clonidine 2 µg/kg - midazolam 0.3 mg/kg (N=17) or ketamine 5 mg/kg - midazolam 0.3 mg/kg (N= 12 patients). Drugs were dissolved in a sweet drink. RESULTS: Full sedation was achieved within 25 min. in 27 patients and serious side effects were not detected. Clonidine in combination with ketamine and midazolam did not exert any significant effect by means of the onset of sedation, time to the achievement of full sedation, vital signs and behavioral measures of sedation (Vancouver Interaction and Calmness Scale) and agitation (Pittsburgh Agitation Scale). CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to document that oral administration of ketamine and midazolam in low doses represents a safe and effective method of premedication in intellectually disabled patients indicated for dental procedures. Clonidine co-administration did not exert any substantial benefit and should be left out in this clinical setting.