The New Portable Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Device Was Efficacious in the Control of Primary Dysmenorrhea Cramp Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an established method for pain relief in dysmenorrhea. A feasible advantage would be the study of a portable device. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a new portable TENS device (TANYX®) for menstruation cramps. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty women were evaluated in a double-blind, prospective, randomized fashion, divided into sham and active groups. TENS was applied medially at the suprapubic region, for 30-min duration at eight-hour intervals, up to seven days. The placebo group (PG) received sham device. The TENS group (TG) applied an active 85 Hz frequency TENS. Efficacy measures were pain relief evaluated on a visual analog scale (VAS) and diclofenac intake, and quality of life represented by: 1) capacity to get out of the bed, 2) food or drink intake, 3) missing routine daily activities such as work or school, and 4) quality of sleep. RESULTS: The active TENS device induced a prompt onset of pain relief in a strictly segmental manner nearby the dermatomes where the TENS was applied at the skin, and there was a drop in mean pain score from 8 to 2 cm (p < 0.001). Diclofenac consumption was also significantly reduced (p < 0.01), compared with the PG. Quality of life improved significantly in TG when compared with PG (p < 0.05). Three months after the beginning of the study, 14/20 of the women were still using the active device regularly. No adverse effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The portable, disposable, active TENS device induced a prompt onset of pain relief and improved the quality of life, without adverse effects, in patients with painful cramps associated with dysmenorrhea.

Efficacy of the Greater Occipital Nerve Block for Cervicogenic Headache: Comparing Classical and Subcompartmental Techniques.

AIM: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of the greater occipital nerve (GON) block using the classical technique and different volumes of injectate with the subcompartmental technique for the treatment of cervicogenic headache (CH). METHODS: Thirty patients acted as his/her own control. All patients were submitted to the GON block by the classical technique with 10 mg dexamethasone, plus 40 mg lidocaine (5 mL volume). Patients were randomly allocated into 1 of 3 groups (n = 10) when pain VAS was > 3 cm. Each group was submitted to a GON subcompartmental technique (10 mg dexamethasone + 40 mg lidocaine + nonionic iodine contrast + saline) under fluoroscopy using either 5, 10, or 15 mL final volume. Analgesia and quality of life were evaluated. RESULTS: The classical GON technique resulted in 2 weeks of analgesia and less rescue analgesic consumption, compared to 24 weeks after the subcompartmental technique (P < 0.01). Quality of life improved at 2 and 24 weeks after the classical and the suboccipital techniques, respectively (P < 0.05). The data revealed that groups were similar regarding analgesia when compared to volume of injection (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: While the classical technique for GON block resulted in only 2 weeks of analgesia, the subcompartmental technique resulted in at least 24 weeks of analgesia, being 5 mL volume sufficient for the performance of the block under fluoroscopy.

Intrathecal ketorolac enhances intrathecal morphine analgesia following total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty represents one of the most painful surgeries. The aim of the study was to compare analgesia and adverse effects of intrathecal (IT) ketorolac versus IT morphine, versus the combination of IT ketorolac and morphine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After ethical approval and patient consent, 80 patients undergoing knee arthroplasty were randomized to one of 4 groups. All groups received 15 mg IT bupivacaine plus IT test drug (2 ml). The control group (CG) received saline as IT test drug. The morphine group (MG) received IT 200 g morphine, the ketorolac group (KG) IT 2 mg ketorolac and the morphine-ketorolac group (MKG) 200 g morphine + 2 mg ketorolac as test drugs. Pain and adverse effects were evaluated. P > 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The MG and KG were similar in their times to time to first rescue analgesic (440 ± 38 min and 381 ± 44 min, respectively). Both groups were longer when compared to the CG (170 ± 13 min) (P > 0.01). The MG and KG had lesser ketoprofen consumption compared to the CG (P > 0.05). The time to first rescue analgesic was longer to the MKG (926 ± 222 min) (15 h) compared to CG (P > 0.001) and to the MG and the KG (P > 0.01). MKG displayed lesser ketoprofen consumption compared to MG and KG (P > 0.05) and to the CG (P > 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest a role for spinal ketorolac and morphine in orthopaedic surgery because this combination of agents provided 15 h of analgesia compared to 7 h after each drug alone, with no significant side-effects.

Spinal and intravenous midazolan anesthetic effects on fentanyl/ ligdocaine regional anesthesia following back minor orthopedic surgery / Midazolan por via espinal ou endovenosa como coadjuvante da anestesia regional com lidocaína/fentanil em pacientes submetidos a procedimentos cirúrgicos lombares de pequeno porte / Midazolan por vía espinal o endovenosa como coadyuvante de la anestesia regional con lidocaína/fentanil en pacientes sometidos a procedimientos quirúrgicos lumbares de pequeño porte

OBJECTIVES: the present study was designed to evaluate the usefulness of intravenous and intrathecal midazolan as an adjunct to intrathecal ligdocaine, with or without intrathecal fentanyl. METHODS: double-blind study, institutional approval and informed consent; 40 patients scheduled for minor lumbar orthopedic surgery were randomly assigned to one of five groups (n=8). Patients were premedicated with a 4 mL final intravenous volume (saline or midazolan). Spinal anaesthesia was administered to a 3 mL final volume - 75 mg of lidocaina plus either 33 mg fentanyl or 500 mg midazolan diluted in saline (0,9 percent) - with the patient in sitting position. The latency time for onset of the block (LT), time to progress to T10 sensory level (TT10), duration of the block (Bl), duration of effective analgesia (An), the subjective degree of intraoperative sedation, level of alertness, concentration level and degree of anxiety were specifically measured. P<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: the addition of midazolan to the intrathecal injection in the absence of fentanyl was the only procedure which caused a statistically significant reduction in LT (p<0.002) and TT10 (p<0.001). Intrathecal midazolan increased the blockade time both with (p<0.05) and without (p<0.02) intrathecal fentanyl, but, when given intravenously, this effect failed to reach statistical significance (p>0,05). Both intrathecal fentanyl and midazolan increased the duration of analgesia (p<0.01). With respect to the subjective measures, group 1 served as the control group, demonstrating an alert, fully awake patient who was able to concentrate but showed some anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: while all additional treatments resulted in a relaxed patient, only those given intrathecal midazolan remained fully awake, alert and able to concentrate. Intrathecal fentanyl with saline premedication or intravenous midazolan premedication resulted in decreased alertness and inability to concentrate, ...

OBJETIVOS: o presente estudo visa avaliar a utilidade da administração do benzodiazepínico midazolan, por via venosa ou espinal, em pacientes submetidos a procedimentos cirúrgicos de pequeno porte sob anestesia regional com lidocaína e fentanil. MÉTODOS: após aprovação do Comitê de Ética em pesquisa e consentimento formal, 40 pacientes foram avaliados de forma duplamente encoberta e prospectiva, sendo divididos aleatoriamente a um dos cinco grupos do estudo (n=8). Os pacientes foram premedicados com midazolan ou solução fisiológica (volume final de 4 mL) por via venosa. A anestesia espinal foi administrada com o paciente sentado, utilizando-se 75 mg de lidocaína, 33 mg de fentanil ou 500 mg de midazolan, diluídos em solução fisiológica (0,9 por cento), sendo o volume final (3 mL) administrado por via intratecal. Foram avaliados: tempo de latência, tempo de bloqueio motor, tempo de analgesia, grau de sedação, nível de alerta, nível de concentração e grau de ansiedade. Foi considerado significante p<0,05. RESULTADOS: a adição de midazolan por via intratecal na ausência de fentanil foi o único procedimento que resultou em redução do tempo de latência para início do bloqueio (p<0,002). Midazolan por via intratecal aumentou o tempo de bloqueio motor, com (p<0,05) ou sem (p<0,02) a associação de fentanil intratecal, enquanto que, ao serem administrado por via venosa, não alterou o tempo de bloqueio motor (p>0,05). Tanto a administração de fentanil ou midazolan intratecais resultaram em aumento do tempo de analgesia (p<0,01). Em relação aos resultados subjetivos, enquanto o grupo 1 atuou como controle, sendo os pacientes alertas, porém com certo grau de ansiedade, os pacientes que receberam midazolan estavam alertas e não ansiosos. CONCLUSÕES: os pacientes que receberam midazolan intratecal permaneceram acordados, alertas e com capacidade de concentração, apresentaram menor latência para anestesia e maior tempo de analgesia.

OBJETIVOS: el presente estudio visa evaluar la utilidad de la administración del benzodiazepínico midazolan por vía venosa o espinal en pacientes sometidos a procedimientos quirúrgicos de pequeño porte sobre anestesia regional con lidocaína y fentanil. MÉTODOS: después de la aprobación del Comité de Ética en Investigación Formal, 40 pacientes fueron evaluados de forma doble-ciego y prospectivo, siendo divididos de forma aleatoria uno de los cinco grupos del estudio (n=8). Los pacientes fueron pre-medicados con midazolan o solución fisiológica (volumen final 4 mL) por vía venosa. La anestesia espinal fue administrada con el paciente sentado, utilizándose 75 mg de lidocaína, 33 mg de fentanil o 500 mg de midazolan diluidos en solución fisiológica (0.9 por ciento), siendo el volumen final administrado por vía intratecal 3 mL. Fueron evaluados: el tiempo de latencia, el de bloqueo motor, el de analgesia, lo grado de sedación y de ansiedad. El p<0.05 fue considerado significativo. RESULTADOS: la adición de midazolan por vía intratecal en la ausencia de fentanil fue el único procedimiento que resultó en reducción del tiempo de latencia para inicio del bloqueo (p<0.002). Midazolan por vía intratecal aumentó el tiempo de bloqueo motor con (p<0.05) o sin (p<0.02) la asociación de fentanil intratecal, mientras que administrado por vía venosa no cambió el tiempo de bloqueo motor (p>0.05). Tanto la administración de fentanil intratecal o midazolan intratecal resultaron en aumento del tiempo de analgesia (p<0.01). En relación a los resultados subjetivos, el Grupo 1 actuó como Control, siendo los pacientes alertas, pero con cierto grado de ansiedad, mientras los pacientes que recibieron midazolan estuvieron alertas y no ansiosos. CONCLUSIONES: los pacientes que recibieron midazolan intratecal permanecieron alertas y con capacidad de concentración, presentaron menor latencia para anestesia y mayor tiempo de analgesia.

The combination of epidural clonidine and S(+)-ketamine did not enhance analgesic efficacy beyond that for each individual drug in adult orthopedic surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefit of epidural clonidine and S(+)-ketamine combination through the epidural route in adult orthopedic surgery. DESIGN: Randomized double-blinded study. SETTING: Teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Scheduled to undergo knee surgery, 56 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 and 2 adult patients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 groups to receive the combined epidural-intrathecal technique. A 10-mL epidural injection of either study drug or normal saline was first administered to all patients. Intrathecal anesthesia was performed with 15 mg of bupivacaine. The control group (CG) received epidural saline. The 0.1-mg/kg S(+)-ketamine epidural group received 0.1 mg/kg epidural S(+)-ketamine. The 0.5-microg/kg clonidine epidural group received 0.5 microg/kg epidural clonidine. The S(+)-ketamine/clonidine group received 0.1 mg/kg epidural S(+)-ketamine plus 0.5 microg/kg epidural clonidine. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pain and adverse effects were evaluated by visual analog scale. Rescue analgesics were available to patients. The groups were demographically similar. Sensory level to pinprick, surgical and anesthetic time, and visual analog scale scores for pain at first rescue medication were similar among the groups. The time to first rescue analgesic (minute) was lowest in CG (P < .005). The CG required more rescue analgesics in 24 hours than any of the other groups (P < .0005). Patients who received either epidural clonidine, S(+)-ketamine, or both displayed similar analgesia. The frequency of adverse effects was similar among groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The association of epidural clonidine or S(+)-ketamine did not result in a greater analgesic effect in the model of acute postoperative pain studied, although the interaction of epidural clonidine and S(+)-ketamine is not attributable to sharing of a common second messenger system.

Antinociceptive effect of low-dose intrathecal neostigmine combined with intrathecal morphine following gynecologic surgery.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether combination of 1-5 microg intrathecal neostigmine would enhance analgesia from a fixed intrathecal dose of morphine. METHODS: A total of 60 patients undergoing gynecologic surgery were randomized to one of five groups. Patients received 15 mg bupivacaine plus 2 ml of the test drug intrathecally (saline, 100 microg morphine, or 1-5 microg neostigmine). The control group received spinal saline as the test drug. The morphine group received spinal morphine as test drug. The morphine + 1 microg neostigmine group received spinal morphine and 1 microg neostigmine. The morphine + 2.5 microg neostigmine group received spinal morphine and 2.5 microg neostigmine. Finally, the morphine + 5 microg neostigmine group received spinal morphine and 5 microg neostigmine. RESULTS: The groups were demographically similar. The time to first rescue analgesic (minutes) was longer for all patients who received intrathecal morphine combined with 1-5 microg neostigmine (median, 6 h) compared with the control group (median, 3 h) (P < 0.02). The morphine group (P < 0.05) and the groups that received the combination of 100 microg intrathecal morphine combined with neostigmine (P < 0.005) required less rescue analgesics in 24 h compared with the control group. The incidence of perioperative adverse effects was similar among groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 1-5 microg spinal neostigmine to 100 microg morphine doubled the duration to first rescue analgesic in the population studied and decreased the analgesic consumption in 24 h, without increasing the incidence of adverse effects. The data suggest that low-dose spinal neostigmine may improve morphine analgesia.