A pilot study of nalbuphine versus tramadol administered through continuous intravenous infusion for postoperative pain control in children.

Nalbuphine and tramadol are potent analgesic drugs. Our aim was to preliminarily assess and compare the efficacy and safety of nalbuphine and tramadol for postoperative analgesia in children. In a double-blind design, 24 ASA 1-3 children aged 1 to 10 years undergoing a scheduled surgical procedure were randomly allocated to receive either an intravenous bolus dose of nalbuphine 100 microg/kg immediately before the end of surgery followed by an infusion of 0.2 microg/kg/min for 72 hrs., or an intravenous bolus dose of tramadol 1000 microg/kg followed by an infusion of 2.0 microg/kg/min for 72 hrs. Postoperative pain control and drug-related adverse events were recorded. Three children who received nalbuphine required an extra bolus dose within the 12 hrs. of post-surgery versus one child in the tramadol group. A similar number of patients in both groups required an increment in the infusion rate within the 72 post-surgery hours. Sedation was observed in 2 children in the nalbuphine group and in 1 child in the tramadol group. Four children presented vomiting with tramadol and two with nalbuphine. Cardiovascular parameters remained within the normal ranges in both groups. In conclusion, the bolus/infusion regimen of tramadol evaluated in this study appears to have better postoperative analgesic efficacy than the bolus/infusion regimen of nalbuphine. These preliminary results require further confirmation by studies with a sample size enough to clearly identify differences in their efficacy as well as in the rate of adverse events secondary to the administration of each of them.

A randomized trial comparing laryngeal mask airway to endotracheal tube in children undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Although the efficacy of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has been demonstrated for securing patency of the airway in children, it has not yet been compared to endotracheal tube (ET) in this population. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of LMA vs. ET in children undergoing elective diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopies. Sixty ASA I-III patients were randomly allocated to ET (Group I) or LMA (Group II). A set of cardiovascular and respiratory parameters were obtained before, during and after the endoscopic procedure. The recovery time and the time to discharge were also registered. The cardiovascular and respiratory parameters evaluated in the study varied across the different evaluation periods. However, they remained within physiological ranges and were not different between groups. The median (range) recovery time was 4 (2-10) min and the time to discharge was 58 (36-88) min in the ET group and 3 (1-7) min and 50 (35-67) min in the LMA group (P > 0.10), respectively. In a 16 month-old, 80 cm and 10 kg girl, we failed to secure the patency of the airway with LMA. In conclusion, the LMA was as effective and safe as ET for securing the airway of children undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopies. However, the 3% failure rate occurred with LMA.