The use of topical nalbuphine in different concentrations to control pain after photorefractive keratectomy

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hala Kamal Mattout ◽  
Sameh Mosaad Fouda
Keyword(s):  
Photorefractive Keratectomy ◽  
Control Pain

scholarly journals Ketorolac used to control pain after photorefractive keratectomy

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 164-165
Author(s):  
Virgilio Galvis ◽  
Alejandro Tello ◽  
Manuel Andrés Alfonso ◽  
Néstor I. Carreño ◽  
Ruben D. Berrospi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Photorefractive Keratectomy ◽  
Control Pain

Smile technology in the correction of residual myopia after photorefractive keratectomy

2020 ◽  
pp. 333-334
Author(s):  
O.V. Pisarevskaya ◽  
◽  
T.N. Iureva ◽  
A.G. Shchuko ◽  
E.P. Ivleva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Photorefractive Keratectomy

Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy on the same day of the initial consultation for the correction of myopia

2021 ◽  
pp. 112067212110334
Author(s):  
Olga Reitblat ◽  
Assaf Gershoni ◽  
Michael Mimouni ◽  
Eitan Livny ◽  
Yoav Nahum ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Photorefractive Keratectomy ◽  
Spherical Equivalent ◽  
Initial Visit ◽  
Safety Outcome ◽  
Uncorrected Visual Acuity ◽  
Safety Indices

Purpose: To examine the clinical outcomes, efficacy, safety, and predictability of transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (Trans-PRK) operations performed on the day of the first screening visit in comparison with operations scheduled at a following appointment. Methods: Data of consecutive patients with myopia of various degrees, who underwent Trans-PRK, were retrospectively analyzed. Findings were compared between patients who underwent Trans-PRK on the same day of first consultation to patients that underwent surgery at subsequent visits, following initial consultation on a different day. Results: The study included 599 eyes treated on the initial visit day and 1936 eyes treated on a subsequent visit. Mean final spherical equivalent was close to emmetropia in both groups ( p = 0.183). Efficacy indices were 0.928 ± 0.192 in the initial-visit group and 0.945 ± 0.163 in the second-visit group ( p = 0.152). Safety indices were 0.954 ± 0.156 and 0.955 ± 0.151 ( p = 0.707), respectively. No differences between the groups were seen in uncorrected visual acuity (UDVA) of ⩾20/20, ⩾20/25, and ⩾20/32. Only the sub-analysis of patients reaching UDVA of 20/40 or better was slightly lower in the first-visit (95.5%) compared with the second-visit group (97.9%, p = 0.001). Results of attempted correction within ±0.50 D were: 63.3% and 69.0%, respectively ( p = 0.009). Complications profiles in the two groups were comparable. Conclusions: Trans-PRK completed on the day of the first screening appointment demonstrated a similar safety outcome compared with subsequent-visits procedures, and slightly lower, yet comparable, results regarding efficacy and predictability.

scholarly journals International survey: real-world pain management strategies

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Hagen ◽  
A Georgescu
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Real World ◽  
Pain Control ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Pain Medication ◽  
International Survey ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Online Panels ◽  
Control Pain

Abstract Background Pain is a nearly universal experience, but little is known about how people treat pain. This international survey assessed real-world pain management strategies. Methods From 13-31 January, 2020, an online survey funded by GSK Consumer Healthcare was conducted in local languages in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, UK, and USA. Adults were recruited from online panels of people who agreed to participate in surveys. Quotas ensured nationally representative online populations based on age, gender, and region. Results Of 19,000 people (1000/country) who completed the survey, 18,602 (98%) had ever experienced physical pain; 76% said they would like to control their pain better. Presented with 17 pain-management strategies and asked to select the ones they use in the order of use, respondents chose an average of 4 strategies each. The most commonly selected strategies were pain medication (65%), rest/sleep (54%), consult a doctor (31%), physical therapy (31%), and nonpharmacologic action (eg, heat/cold application; 29%). Of those who use pain medication, 56% take some other action first. Only 36% of those who treat pain do so immediately; 56% first wait to see if it will resolve spontaneously. Top reasons for waiting include a desire to avoid medication (37%); willingness to tolerate less severe pain (33%); concerns about side effects (21%) or dependency (21%); and wanting to avoid a doctor's visit unless pain is severe or persistent (21%). Nearly half (42%) of those who take action to control pain have visited ≥1 healthcare professional (doctor 31%; pharmacist 18%; other 17%) about pain. Conclusions This large global survey shows that people employ a range of strategies to manage pain but still wish for better pain control. Although pain medication is the most commonly used strategy, many people postpone or avoid its use. Key messages More than three-quarters (76%) of respondents across countries seek better pain control. Pain medication and rest/sleep consultation are the most common pain management strategies. More than half of respondents (56%) wait to see if pain will resolve spontaneously before taking any action, and 56% of those who use pain medication try some other approach first.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document