Do local analgesics injected at the time of third molar removal under general anaesthesia reduce significantly post operative analgesic requirements? A double-blind controlled trial

1989 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.R. Tuffin ◽  
D.R. Cunliffe ◽  
S.R. Shaw
Keyword(s):  
General Anaesthesia ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Local Analgesics

Prevention of Opioid-Induced Nausea and Vomiting During Treatment of Moderate to Severe Acute Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial Comparing CL-108 (Hydrocodone 7.5 mg/Acetaminophen 325 mg/Rapid-Release, Low-Dose Promethazine 12.5 mg) with Conventional Hydrocodone 7.5 mg/Acetaminophen 325 mg

Pain Medicine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 2528-2538
Author(s):  
John R Zuniga ◽  
Athena S Papas ◽  
Stephen E Daniels ◽  
Kyle Patrick ◽  
Derek D Muse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Acute Pain ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Rapid Release ◽  
Surgical Extraction

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the prevention of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and the relief of moderate to severe acute pain by CL-108, a novel drug combining a low-dose antiemetic (rapid-release promethazine 12.5 mg) with hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg (HC/APAP) was used. Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled multidose study. After surgical extraction of two or more impacted third molar teeth (including at least one mandibular impaction), 466 patients with moderate to severe pain (measured on a categorical pain intensity scale [PI-CAT]) were randomized to CL-108, HC/APAP, or placebo. Over the next 24 hours, patients used the PI-CAT to assess pain at regular intervals whereas nausea, vomiting, and other opioid-related side effects were also assessed prospectively. Study medications were taken every four to six hours as needed; supplemental rescue analgesic and antiemetic medications were permitted. Co-primary end points were the incidence of OINV and the time-weighted sum of pain intensity differences over 24 hours (SPID24). Results Relative to HC/APAP treatment alone, CL-108 treatment reduced OINV by 64% (P < 0.001). Treatment with CL-108 significantly reduced pain intensity compared with placebo (SPID24 = 16.2 vs 3.5, P < 0.001). There were no unexpected or serious adverse events. Conclusions CL-108 is a safe and effective combination analgesic/antiemetic for the prevention of OINV during treatment of moderate to severe acute pain.

scholarly journals Effect of low-level laser therapy on the post-surgical inflammatory process after third molar removal: study protocol for a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Oliveira Sierra ◽  
Alessandro Melo Deana ◽  
Raquel Agnelli Mesquita Ferrari ◽  
Priscilla Maia Albarello ◽  
Sandra Kalil Bussadori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Inflammatory Process ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Level Laser

Antibiotic therapy in fully impacted lower third molar surgery: randomized three-arm, double-blind, controlled trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Basílio Almeida Milani ◽  
Henrique Camargo Bauer ◽  
Hélio Sampaio-Filho ◽  
Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini Horliana ◽  
Flávio Eduardo Guillin Perez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Double Blind

scholarly journals Double-blind Comparison of Patient Recovery after Induction with Propofol or Thiopentone for Day-case Relaxant General Anaesthesia

1992 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. C. Chittleborough ◽  
G. A. Osborne ◽  
G. E. Rudkin ◽  
D. Vickers ◽  
P. I. Leppard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Anaesthesia ◽  
Recovery Period ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Day Surgery ◽  
Postoperative Recovery ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Surgical Extraction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Recovery Times ◽  
Blind Comparison

Postoperative recovery after induction with either propofol or thiopentone has been compared in forty ASA I unpremedicated day surgery patients undergoing surgical extraction of third molar teeth under relaxant general anaesthesia. Mean recovery times in the propofol group, required for patients to sit out of bed (44.8 minutes; SD 18.6) and meet discharge criteria (113.1 minutes; SD 34.5) were significantly (P < 0.05) shorter than those in the thiopentone group (59.7 minutes; SD 21.4 and 133.5 minutes; SD 34.5). Fewer patients in the propofol group were treated in the recovery room for nausea and vomiting and the incidence of mild nausea not requiring treatment was less in the propofol group, but these differences were not statistically significant. Postoperative mental performance, measured by the FAST index, a new test of mental speed, was reduced on average by 1.7% of preoperative levels, during the recovery period tested, with no significant difference between the groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document