Acetazolamide Reduces Referred Postoperative Pain after Laparoscopic Surgery with Carbon Dioxide Insufflation

2003 ◽  
Vol 99 (4) ◽  
pp. 924-928 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harvey J. Woehlck ◽  
Mary Otterson ◽  
Hyun Yun ◽  
Lois A. Connolly ◽  
Daniel Eastwood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Carbonic Anhydrase ◽  
Carbonic Acid ◽  
Referred Pain ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Carbon Dioxide Insufflation ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Incisional Pain

Background Carbon dioxide is the preferred insufflating gas for laparoscopy because of greater safety in the event of intravenous embolism, but it causes abdominal and referred pain. Acidification of the peritoneum by carbonic acid may be the major cause of pain from carbon dioxide insufflation. Carbonic anhydrase is an enzyme that increases the rate of carbonic acid formation from carbon dioxide. Because acetazolamide inhibits carbonic anhydrase, the authors hypothesized that the pain caused by carbon dioxide insufflation may be decreased by the administration of acetazolamide. Methods A prospective, randomized, double-blind study of 38 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery during general anesthesia was performed. Acetazolamide (5 mg/kg) or a saline placebo was administered intravenously during surgery. Pain was rated on a visual analog scale (0-10) at four times: when first awake, at discharge from the recovery room, when discharged from the hospital, and on the day after surgery. The site and quality of pain were recorded, as were medications and side effects. Results Initial referred pain scores were lower after acetazolamide (1.00 +/- 1.98; n = 18) than after placebo (3.40 +/- 3.48; n = 20; P = 0.014), and 78% of patients in the acetazolamide group had no referred pain; however, only 45% patients in the placebo group had no referred pain. Incisional pain scores were not statistically different, and referred pain scores were similar at later times. Conclusions Acetazolamide reduces referred but not incisional pain after laparoscopic surgical procedures. The duration of pain reduction is limited to the immediate postsurgical period.

scholarly journals Diclofenac in Combination with Opiate Infusion after Joint Replacement Surgery

1991 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-538 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. K. Anderson ◽  
B. A. Al Shaikh
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Joint Replacement ◽  
Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Gastrointestinal Complications ◽  
Visual Analogue Pain ◽  
Joint Replacement Surgery ◽  
Replacement Surgery ◽  
Pain Scores

The effect of intramuscular diclofenac or placebo on analgesia obtained and on opiate and antiemetic requirements was observed in a randomised double-blind study of sixty patients receiving continuous intravenous papaveretum. Those patients receiving diclofenac required less papaveretum (P = 0.001) than those receiving placebo. They also had lower visual analogue pain scores (VAS) at four hours (P < 0.05) and decreased requirement for antiemetics (P < 0.02). No gastrointestinal complications were observed in either group and blood loss did not differ significantly between the two.

The Impact of Alvimopan on Return of Bowel Function After Major Spine Surgery – A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. E233-E239
Author(s):  
Lauren K Dunn ◽  
Robert H Thiele ◽  
Michelle C Lin ◽  
Edward C Nemergut ◽  
Marcel E Durieux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Bowel Movement ◽  
Bowel Function ◽  
Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

Abstract BACKGROUND Pain management following major spine surgery requires high doses of opioids and is associated with a risk of opioid-induced constipation. Peripheral mu-receptor antagonists decrease the gastrointestinal complications of perioperative systemic opioid administration without antagonizing the analgesic benefits of these drugs. OBJECTIVE To investigate the impact of alvimopan in opioid-naive patients undergoing major spine surgery. METHODS Patients undergoing >3 levels of thoracic and/or lumbar spine surgery were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, double-blind study to receive either alvimopan or placebo prior to and following surgery. Opioid consumption; pain scores; and time of first oral intake, flatus, and bowel movement were recorded. RESULTS A total of 24 patients were assigned to the active group and 25 were assigned to the placebo group. There was no significant difference in demographics between the groups. Postoperatively, the alvimopan group reported earlier time to first solid intake [median (range): alvimopan: 15 h (3-25) vs placebo: 17 h (3-46), P < .001], passing of flatus [median (range): alvimopan: 22 h (7-63) vs placebo: 28 h (10-58), P < .001], and first bowel movement [median (range): alvimopan: 50 h (22-80) vs placebo: 64 h (40-114), P < .001]. The alvimopan group had higher pain scores (maximum, minimum, and median); however, there was no significant difference between the groups with postoperative opioid use. CONCLUSION This study shows that the perioperative use of alvimopan significantly reduced the time to return of bowel function with no increase in postoperative opioid use despite a slight increase in pain scores.

Ropivacaine 0.2% and Lidocaine 0.5% for Intravenous Regional Anesthesia in Outpatient Surgery

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 627-631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter G. Atanassoff ◽  
Carlos A. Ocampo ◽  
Marcos Castro Bande ◽  
Maximilian W. B. Hartmannsgruber ◽  
Thomas M. Halaszynski
Keyword(s):  
Regional Anesthesia ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Outpatient Surgery ◽  
Postanesthesia Care Unit ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Lidocaine Group ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Intravenous Regional Anesthesia

Background A longer-acting local anesthetic agent, such as ropivacaine, may offer advantages over lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether the findings of volunteer investigations with intravenous regional anesthesia with ropivacaine (which have shown prolonged analgesia after release of the tourniquet) translates into improved pain control after surgery. Methods With Human Investigation Committee approval and a double-blind study design, 20 healthy patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II classification who were scheduled to undergo forearm and hand surgery were randomly assigned to administration of 40 ml of either 0.2% ropivacaine or 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. Evidence of central nervous system side effects, such as lightheadedness, tinnitus, and metallic taste, as well as cardiac arrhythmias, were evaluated and treated (if necessary) after local anesthetic administration, before and during surgery, and after release of the tourniquet until discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. Regression of sensory anesthesia in the nerve distributions of the forearm and hand was recorded. Verbal numerical pain scores were monitored and quantified until the patients were discharged to home from the postanesthesia care unit. Patient pain scores, side effect profiles, time to first oral intake, and total amount of oral analgesics were recorded 24 h postoperatively. Results Intravenous regional anesthesia with 0.2% ropivacaine and 0.5% lidocaine provided equivalent levels of surgical anesthesia. After release of the tourniquet, the first evidence for return of sensation in the distribution of the five peripheral nerves occurred later in the ropivacaine group (median, 20 min; range, 15-40 min) than in the lidocaine group (median, 1 min; range, 1-25 min). Verbal numerical pain scores were significantly lower at the time of admission, whereas during the remainder of the postanesthesia care unit stay and later at home, the difference in verbal numerical pain scores between the two groups was no longer statistically significant. Conclusions Ropivacaine 0.2% may be an alternative to 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia in the outpatient surgical setting. Longer-lasting analgesia in the immediate postoperative period may be due to a more profound and prolonged tissue binding effect of ropivacaine.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document