Does Simple Oral Route of Administration Affect Acute Post Operative Pain?(Oral Pregabalin Versus Oral Morphine Sulphate) for Acute Post Operative Pain following Cancer Surgeries

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-26
Author(s):  
Alaa Ali M. Elzohry ◽  
Ahmed Fetouh Abdelrahman ◽  
Ahmed Ahmed ◽  
Bahaa Gamal Saad ◽  
Ahmed Mohamed Ashmawy
2021 ◽  
pp. 026921632110087
Author(s):  
Liz Jamieson ◽  
Emily Harrop ◽  
Margaret Johnson ◽  
Christina Liossi ◽  
Christine Mott ◽  
...  

Background: Oral morphine is frequently used for breakthrough pain but the oral route is not always available and absorption is slow. Transmucosal diamorphine is administered by buccal, sublingual or intranasal routes, and rapidly absorbed. Aim: To explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals in the UK caring for children with life-limiting conditions concerning the assessment and management of breakthrough pain; prescribing and administration of transmucosal diamorphine compared with oral morphine; and the feasibility of a comparative clinical trial. Design/ participants: Three focus groups, analysed using a Framework approach. Doctors, nurses and pharmacists ( n = 28), caring for children with life-limiting illnesses receiving palliative care, participated. Results: Oral morphine is frequently used for breakthrough pain across all settings; with transmucosal diamorphine largely limited to use in hospices or given by community nurses, predominantly buccally. Perceived advantages of oral morphine included confidence in its use with no requirement for specific training; disadvantages included tolerability issues, slow onset, unpredictable response and unsuitability for patients with gastrointestinal failure. Perceived advantages of transmucosal diamorphine were quick onset and easy administration; barriers included lack of licensed preparations and prescribing guidance with fears over accountability of prescribers, and potential issues with availability, preparation and palatability. Factors potentially affecting recruitment to a trial were patient suitability and onerousness for families, trial design and logistics, staff time and clinician engagement. Conclusions: There were perceived advantages to transmucosal diamorphine, but there is a need for access to a safe preparation. A clinical trial would be feasible provided barriers were overcome.


1984 ◽  
Vol 56 (8) ◽  
pp. 821-827 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. VATER ◽  
G. SMITH ◽  
G.W. AHERNE ◽  
A.R. AITKENHEAD

Pain ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. S398 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. J. McQuay ◽  
R. A. Moore ◽  
R. E.S. Bullingham ◽  
C. J. Glynn ◽  
J. W. Lloyd

1986 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 505-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Savarese ◽  
Paul D. Goldenheim ◽  
Gordon B. Thomas ◽  
Robert F. Kaiko

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14075-e14075
Author(s):  
Stephen A Raymond ◽  
John F Hutchin ◽  
Arnold Degboe ◽  
Kenneth G Faulkner

e14075 Background: Patient reported pain is subjective, requiring individuals to grade the feeling of pain as “high” or “low”, typically using a numeric scale. As a supplement to self-reported pain, monitoring the dosage and type of treatment needed to keep pain at a tolerable or comfortable level has been suggested. However, differences in treatments can complicate the ability to compare analgesic effects. One approach to this problem uses a 30 mg oral dose of morphine as a standard to quantify the relative analgesic strength of different pain medications. Methods: For use in clinical research, we developed an application on a handheld device for logging opioid consumption and supporting automated determination of oral morphine equivalents (OME) for commonly prescribed analgesics. We reviewed the literature to prepare a comprehensive database of OMEs for more than 450 commonly prescribed pain medications. From treatment logs (time, dose, and route of administration), the application determines a daily “OME Score” in standardized units of mg of oral morphine. Results: As prescriptions change, the daily OME Score gives a comparable measure to track the utilization of diverse analgesic medications. OME Scores can be categorized using the Analgesic Quantification Algorithm (AQA scale) developed by Chung (1). The AQA scale has eight categories and provides 5 gradations for patients in advanced pain who receive strong opioids, each gradation reflecting adoubling in the daily OME Score. The impact of a therapy on pain may be considered clinically significant depending on the changes in self-reported pain and AQA scores related to the treatment. Conclusions: We have developed a method and associated application for easily logging the time, dose, and route of administration of analgesic treatments. This information can be used to compute the daily OME Score for a wide variety of analgesics. The daily OME score can then be tracked and used to report the AQA score alongside self-reported pain for evaluating pain relief in clinical studies. Reference: 1) Chung KC, Barlev A, Braun AH, Qian Y, Zagari M. Pain Medicine 2014; 15:225-232.


1989 ◽  
Vol 27 (18) ◽  
pp. 71-72

Oral morphine is the standard analgesic for severe opioid-responsive cancer pain.1 It is traditionally used as an aqueous solution, prepared as needed by the hospital or community pharmacy, and although slow-release morphine sulphate tablets (MST-Continus) are now widely used many doctors still prescribe an aqueous solution for initial dose titration, for top-up use, “as needed” use and for patients who dislike tablets.2


2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-23
Author(s):  
Mohammad Obaidullah ◽  
Parash Chandra Sarkar ◽  
Manash Kumer Basu ◽  
Mohammad Omar Faruq ◽  
Sabina Yeasmeen ◽  
...  

Background: Sedation has become more common for children undergoing procedures in the emergency department, dentistry, and day care surgery. A desirable sedative agent has a rapid onset with short duration of action and is effective and safe. Midazolam as a sedative agent that fulfills these criteria. However controversy surrounds regarding its route of administration, particularly with respect to its ease of administration and patient acceptance. Although the oral route of administration is the most popular among pediatric surgeons and dentists, confrontation and frustration often arise when children refuse to accept the sedative medication.Objectives: To evaluate the outcome (satisfactory anxiolysis and smooth early parental separation) between oral midazolam (OM) and intranasal midazolam(INM)spray in children for conscious sedation before general anaesthesia.Methods: Children aged 1 – 6 years scheduled for routine elective surgery were included to receive midazolam as premedication drug. A total of 80 children were recruited consecutively. Of them 40 were randomly assigned to either single dose of 0.5 mg/kg via oral route (OM0) or 0.5 mg/kg of body weight by intranasal spray(INM). The outcome variables were smooth separation of children from their parents at the level of conscious sedation and time to smooth separation.Results: No change in sedation score was evident in first 3 minutes following midazolam administration. Then the sedation score of INM group increased sharply to assume a mean score of 2 at 9 minutes. No demonstrated change was further noted up to the end of observation. Meanwhile the sedation score of OM group began to increase steadily up to the end of observation when it assumed a mean score of 1.5. The INM group attained a good level of sedation much earlier than its OM counterpart. The mean sedation scores were significantly higher in the former group than those in the latter group. During the first 3 minutes of midazolam administration no change in anxiolysis was noted. Then the score began to increase in both the INM and OM groups, but INM group experienced a much faster increase than the OM group so that the former group reached a mean score of almost 3 and the latter group to a mean score of nearly 2 at 15 minutes interval. The levels of anxiolysis attained by the intranasal group were significantly higher compared to those attained by the oral midazolam group (table II).All but 1 children (97.5%) in the INM group were separated from their parents smoothly as opposed to 90% in the OM group (p = 0.148). In the INM group 12.8% of children were separated at 9 minutes, 69.2% from 10 – 12 minutes (over two-thirds) and 18% from 15 – 18 minutes. In the OM group 13.9% were separated at 15 minutes, about 39% at 18 – 21 minutes, 22.3% at 24 minutes and the rest 11.1% at 27 minutes after premedication. Overall more than 80% of the children in the INM group were separated at 9 – 12 minutes following midazolam administration when none of the children in the OM group was separated (p < 0.001). Complications like nasal irritation was staggeringly higher in the INM group shown on table IV.Conclusion: Despite the intranasal route causes a substantial proportion of children to suffer from nasal irritation, it is the preferred route over oral route, because intranasal route induces much faster sedation and anxiolysis and helps easy and smooth separation of children from their parents.Journal of Bangladesh Society of Anaesthesiologists 2014; 27(1): 17-23


1991 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
J. D. Brown ◽  
J. D. Van Wagoner ◽  
R. OʼCallaghan ◽  
R. F. Kaiko ◽  
R. P. Grandy ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document