scholarly journals Comparison of caudal and intravenous dexamethasone as adjuvants for caudal epidural block: A double blinded randomised controlled trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (12) ◽  
pp. 948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bharath Srinivasan ◽  
Rakesh Karnawat ◽  
Sadik Mohammed ◽  
Bharat Chaudhary ◽  
Anil Ratnawat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Epidural Block ◽  
Caudal Epidural Block ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Double Blinded ◽  
Caudal Epidural

scholarly journals Mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics versus mechanical bowel preparation only prior rectal surgery (MOBILE2): a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial—study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e051269
Author(s):  
Laura Koskenvuo ◽  
Pipsa Lunkka ◽  
Pirita Varpe ◽  
Marja Hyöty ◽  
Reetta Satokari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Rectal Surgery ◽  
Mechanical Bowel Preparation ◽  
Oral Antibiotic ◽  
Oral Antibiotics ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Double Blinded

IntroductionMechanical bowel preparation (MBP) prior to rectal surgery is widely used. Based on retrospective data many guidelines recommend mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) to reduce postoperative complications and specifically surgical site infections (SSIs). The primary aim of this study is to examine whether MOABP reduces complications of rectal surgery.Methods and analysisThe MOBILE2 (Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Oral Antibiotics vs Mechanical Bowel Preparation Only Prior Rectal Surgery) trial is a multicentre, double-blinded, parallel group, superiority, randomised controlled trial comparing MOABP to MBP among patients scheduled for rectal surgery with colorectal or coloanal anastomosis. The patients randomised to the MOABP group receive 1 g neomycin and 1 g metronidazole two times on a day prior to surgery and patients randomised to the MBP group receive identical placebo. Based on power calculations, 604 patients will be enrolled in the study. The primary outcome is Comprehensive Complication Index within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes are SSIs within 30 days after surgery, the number and classification of anastomosis dehiscences, the length of hospital stay, mortality within 90 days after surgery and the number of patients who received adjuvant treatment if needed. Tertiary outcomes are overall survival, disease-specific survival, recurrence-free survival and difference in quality-of-life before and 1 year after surgery. In addition, the microbiota differences in colon mucosa are analysed.Ethics and disseminationThe Ethics Committee of Helsinki University Hospital approved the study. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed academic journals.Trial registration numberNCT04281667.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Caudal Epidural Bupivacaine with Adrenaline and Bupivacaine with Adrenaline and Pethidine for Operative and Postoperative Analgesia in Infants and Children

1993 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 424-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. P. Santhosh Kumar ◽  
R. Jacob
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Infants And Children ◽  
Epidural Bupivacaine ◽  
High Incidence ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Very High ◽  
In Infants And Children ◽  
Caudal Epidural

This study compares the effectiveness of two drug combinations–010-(010a) bupivacaine with adrenaline and (b) bupivacaine with adrenaline and pethidine — on operative and postoperative pain relief when administered by the caudal route in infants and children. A randomised controlled trial was conducted on fifty children below the age of twelve years: 25 children were randomly allocated to each group. Both groups had a significant period of analgesia in the postoperative period. None of the children in either group required parenteral analgesia. Though the group with pethidine had a longer duration of analgesia and sedation, the very high incidence of vomiting and delay in urination observed in this group would preclude the use of pethidine routinely. No respiratory depression was seen in either group.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document