scholarly journals Non-pharmaceutical intervention and pain management situation for neonatal analgesia

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 299-305
Author(s):  
Zi Zeng ◽  
Yan-Xia Duan ◽  
Guo-Min Song

AbstractNeonatal pain management is an important issue which should have great attention. More and more researches have proved that neonates can feel pain when undergoes painful procedures such as vaccination, heel stick, and so on, and it will result in short-term and long-term outcomes. So it is very important to manage neonatal pain. This article summarized some non-pharmaceutical interventions, including sucrose or glucose, non-nutritional sucking (NNS), breastfeeding, facilitated tucking (FT), kangaroo mother care (KMC), swaddling, heel warming, sensorial saturation (SS), and music therapy, which showed obvious effects for neonatal pain. In addition, this article summarized the progress of neonatal pain intervention in various countries and showed that many countries have not paid enough attention to this problem, while some countries have carried out promotion programs for neonatal pain management which give some clinical enlightenment to our country that we need to pay more attention to this problem.

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 50
Author(s):  
Jothydev Kesavadev ◽  
Shashank Joshi ◽  
Banshi Saboo ◽  
Hemant Thacker ◽  
Arun Shankar ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 327-334
Author(s):  
Takashi Matsumoto ◽  
Naoya Yoshida ◽  
Yoshifumi Baba ◽  
Yohei Nagai ◽  
Hideo Baba

2020 ◽  
Vol 84 ◽  
pp. 147-153
Author(s):  
Kosei Takagi ◽  
Yuzo Umeda ◽  
Ryuichi Yoshida ◽  
Nobuyuki Watanabe ◽  
Takashi Kuise ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirhasan Rahimli ◽  
Aristotelis Perrakis ◽  
Vera Schellerer ◽  
Andrew Gumbs ◽  
Eric Lorenz ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is increasing in incidence. The aim of this work was to present our experience by reporting short-term and long-term outcomes after MILS for CRLM with comparative analysis of laparoscopic (LLS) and robotic liver surgery (RLS). Methods Twenty-five patients with CRLM, who underwent MILS between May 2012 and March 2020, were selected from our retrospective registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS). Thirteen of these patients underwent LLS and 12 RLS. Short-term and long-term outcomes of both groups were analyzed. Results Operating time was significantly longer in the RLS vs. the LLS group (342.0 vs. 200.0 min; p = 0.004). There was no significant difference between the laparoscopic vs. the robotic group regarding length of postoperative stay (8.8 days), measured blood loss (430.4 ml), intraoperative blood transfusion, overall morbidity (20.0%), and liver surgery related morbidity (4%). The mean BMI was 27.3 (range from 19.2 to 44.8) kg/m2. The 30-day mortality was 0%. R0 resection was achieved in all patients (100.0%) in RLS vs. 10 patients (76.9%) in LLS. Major resections were carried out in 32.0% of the cases, and 84.0% of the patients showed intra-abdominal adhesions due to previous abdominal surgery. In 24.0% of cases, the tumor was bilobar, the maximum number of tumors removed was 9, and the largest tumor was 8.5 cm in diameter. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 84, 56.9, and 48.7%, respectively. The 1- and 3-year overall recurrence-free survival rates were 49.6 and 36.2%, respectively, without significant differences between RLS vs. LLS. Conclusion Minimally invasive liver surgery for CRLM is safe and feasible. Minimally invasive resection of multiple lesions and large tumors is also possible. RLS may help to achieve higher rates of R0 resections. High BMI, previous abdominal surgery, and bilobar tumors are not a barrier for MILS. Laparoscopic and robotic liver resections for CRLM provide similar long-term results which are comparable to open techniques.


2014 ◽  
Vol 148 (4) ◽  
pp. 1400-1406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Puja Gaur ◽  
Tsuyoshi Kaneko ◽  
Siobhan McGurk ◽  
James D. Rawn ◽  
Ann Maloney ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 60 (5) ◽  
pp. 261-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenichiro Noguchi ◽  
Atsushi Yamaguchi ◽  
Kazuhiro Naito ◽  
Kouichi Yuri ◽  
Hideo Adachi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document