Nebulized morphine for analgesia in an emergency setting

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Bounes, MD ◽  
Jean Louis Ducassé, MD ◽  
Annie Momo Bona, MD ◽  
Florent Battefort, MD ◽  
Charles-Henri Houze-Cerfon, MD ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Relief ◽  
Acute Pain ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Numerical Rating Scale ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Point Estimate ◽  
Emergency Setting ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled morphine delivered in patients experiencing severe acute pain in an emergency setting.Patients and Methods: Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 18 years or older, with a severe acute pain defined by a numerical rating scale (NRS) score of 60/100 or higher. The intervention involved administering a single dose of 0.2 mg/kg morphine nebulized using a Misty-Neb nebulizer system. NRSs were recorded and were repeated at 1, 3, 5, and 10 minute after the end of inhalation (T10). The protocol-defined primary outcome measure was pain relief (defined by an NRS score of 30/100 or lower) at T10. Secondary outcomes included differences between pain scores at baseline and at T10 and incidence of adverse events.Results: A total of 28 patients were included in this study. No patient experienced pain relief 10 minutes after the end of inhalation, and no adverse effects were recorded. Respective initial and final median NRS scores were 80 (70-90) and 70 (60-80), p < 0.0001. Despite achieving statistical significance, the value of this point estimate is less than the 14 NRS difference that was defined a priori as representing a minimum clinically significant difference in pain severity.Conclusion: 0.2 mg/kg nebulized morphine is not effective in managing acute pain in an emergency setting. In spite of the potential advantages of the pulmonary route of administration, opioids should be intravenous prescribed at short fixed intervals to control severe acute pain in an emergency setting.

OP5 Rapid analgesia for prehospital hip disruption (RAPID): findings from a randomised feasibility study

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. e2.3-e3
Author(s):  
Jenna Bulger ◽  
Alan Brown ◽  
Bridie Evans ◽  
Greg Fegan ◽  
Simon Ford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Fracture ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Prehospital Care ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Adequate Pain Relief ◽  
Significant Difference

BackgroundAdequate pain relief in prehospital care is a major challenge in all acute traumas, especially for those with hip fractures, whose injuries are difficult to immobilise and whose long term outcomes may be adversely affected by administration of opiate analgesics. Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block (FICB) is routinely undertaken by clinicians in the emergency department for patients with hip fracture, but has not been fully evaluated for use by paramedics in prehospital care.We aimed to test whether FICB for hip fracture pain relief carried out by paramedics in prehospital care was feasible, safe and acceptable, and whether trial Methods were viable, so that we could decide whether to proceed to a fully-powered RCT to evaluate clinical and cost effectiveness.MethodsNineteen paramedics were trained to administer FICB. They randomly allocated eligible patients to FICB or usual care using audited scratchcards. Patients were followed up to assess availability of key outcomes including quality of life, length of hospital stay, pain scores, and adverse events. Findings were analysed against pre-specified feasibility criteria to determine whether it was appropriate to progress to a fully-powered trial.ResultsSeventy-one patients were randomised by paramedics between 28/6/16 and 31/7/17; 57 of these patients consented to follow up. The only outcome which reached a statistically significant difference between groups was the proportion of participants who received morphine (38% difference between groups 95% CI −61.88 to −15.79). There was a difference of approximately nine days in the length of stay between trial arms (mean difference 9.12 (95% CI −20.51 to 2.27).ConclusionsRAPID met its pre-specified progression criteria; a funding application for a fully-powered RCT will therefore be submitted. We will consider the use of length of stay as the primary outcome measure, as feasibility study findings indicated that there was a difference between groups without reaching statistical significance.

scholarly journals Comparison of efficacy and safety of oxycodone versus fentanyl for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia in postoperative pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng Chen ◽  
Fuchao Chen ◽  
Jiexin Lei ◽  
zhou benhong
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Numerical Rating Scale ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Pain Relief ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Patient Controlled Analgesia ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Backgroud Patient-controlled analgesia(PCA) with intravenous an opioid has been suggested as a effective method of postoperative pain relief. There are several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of comparison of oxycodone and fentanyl for IV-PCA in surgical patients. The purpose of this study was to performed a meta-analysis to compare the effect of intravenous oxycodone and fentanyl on post-operative pain in sugical patients from collected current data. Methods The RCTs of oxycodone versus fentanyl for IV-PCA were gathered from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, CNKI and VIP data. After data extraction and quality assessment of the included RCTs, the RevMan 5.3 software was applied for meta-analysis of numerical rating scale (NRS) scores, accumulated IV-PCA consumption of oxycodone and fentanyl, patient satisfaction, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and other adverse events (AEs). Results Results reported from eight RCTs involving 600 patients are included in the meta-analysis. The NRS score at rest and upon movement of group oxycodone was significantly lower than that of group fentanyl (WMD= -3.85, 95% CI -4.93~-2.76, P<0.00001; WMD= -4.31, 95% CI -5.79~-2.84, P<0.00001); however, the incidence of PONV and dizziness was significantly higher in group oxycodone than in group fentanyl (OR = 2.41, 95% CI 1.60~3.63, P < 0.0001; OR=3.69, 95% CI 2.17~6.26, P<0.00001). Accumulated IV-PCA consumption in group oxycodone was less than in group fentanyl overall the 48 hours postoperatively (WMD= -12.11, 95% CI -18.42~-5.80, P = 0.0002). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between oxycodone and fentanyl (OR=0.73, 95% CI 0.11~5.04, P= 0.75). Conclusion According to the evidence, this meta-analysis suggest that oxycodone IV-PCA is superior to fentanyl in postoperative pain relief, whereas the higher incidence of PONV and dizziness was accompanied with oxycodone. Further large-scale and well-designed studies are needed to summarize and analyse the data to draw a more convincing conclusion.

Comparing the efficacy of nebulized morphine with intravenous morphine in traumatic musculoskeletal pain management

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-21
Author(s):  
Mani Mofidi ◽  
Ali Dashti ◽  
Mahdi Rezai ◽  
Niloufar Ghodrati ◽  
Hoorolnesa Ameli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Normal Saline ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Numerical Rating Scale ◽  
Vital Signs ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Intravenous Morphine ◽  
Numerical Rating

Introduction: This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of intravenous morphine with nebulized morphine in pain relief of patients referring to the emergency setting with traumatic musculoskeletal pain. Methods: This randomized, placebo-controlled and double-blind clinical study evaluated 160 patients 18 to 65 years of age with acute traumatic pain, who attended the emergency department during 2019. Subjects were assessed with Numerical Rating Scale based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and randomly divided into two groups. In one group, 80 patients received IV morphine (0.1 mg/kg+5 mL normal saline) plus an equivalent volume of IV placebo. In the second group, 80 patients received nebulized morphine (0.2 mg/kg+5 mL normal saline) plus nebulized placebo. Pain score was monitored in all patients with Numerical Rating Scale before and after intervention at baseline, 15, 30, 45, and 60-minute intervals. Patients’ vital signs and possible adverse events were evaluated in each observation time points. Finally, all participants were assessed for their satisfaction with pain management. Data were analyzed using repeated measure analysis for continuous variables and Binomial test for categorical variables Results: There was no significant difference between the demographic characteristics of patients in study groups. Pain relief between the two groups was similar during the observation (0, 15, 30, 45, 60 min) (P>0.05). There were no changes in vital signs between two groups, although the nebulized group had lower systolic blood pressure at the time-point of 15 minutes after the treatment initiation (P=0.03). Conclusion: Although Nebulized morphine has similar efficacy in comparison with IV route, nebulization might be considered as the clinically efficacious route of morphine administration with minimal side effects, providing optimal pain relief in patients.

scholarly journals Adolescents’ pain and distress during peripheral intravenous cannulation in a paediatric emergency setting

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Cozzi ◽  
Marta Cognigni ◽  
Riccardo Busatto ◽  
Veronica Grigoletto ◽  
Manuela Giangreco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Local Anaesthesia ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Emergency Setting ◽  
Older Children ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Paediatric Emergency Department ◽  
Paediatric Emergency ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractThe objective of the study is to investigate pain and distress experienced by a group of adolescents and children during peripheral intravenous cannulation in a paediatric emergency department. This cross-sectional study was performed between November 2019 and June 2020 at the paediatric emergency department of the Institute for Maternal and Child Health of Trieste, Italy. Eligible subjects were patients between 4 and 17 years old undergoing intravenous cannulation, split into three groups based on their age: adolescents (13–17 years), older children (8–12 years), and younger children (4–7 years). Procedural distress and pain scores were recorded through validated scales. Data on the use of topical anaesthesia, distraction techniques, and physical or verbal comfort during procedures were also collected. We recruited 136 patients: 63 adolescents, 48 older children, and 25 younger children. There was no statistically significant difference in the median self-reported procedural pain found in adolescents (4; IQR = 2–6) versus older and younger children (5; IQR = 2–8 and 6; IQR = 2–8, respectively). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in the rate of distress between adolescents (79.4%), older (89.6%), and younger (92.0%) children. Adolescents received significantly fewer pain relief techniques.Conclusion: This study shows that adolescents experience similar pain and pre-procedural distress as younger children during peripheral intravenous cannulation. What is Known:• Topical and local anaesthesia, physical and verbal comfort, and distraction are useful interventions for pain and anxiety management during intravenous cannulation in paediatric settings. • No data is available on pain and distress experienced by adolescents in the specific setting of the emergency department. What is New:• Adolescents experienced high levels of pre-procedural distress in most cases and similar levels of pain and distress when compared to younger patients• The number of pain relief techniques employed during procedures was inversely proportional to patient’s age, topical or local anaesthesia were rarely used

scholarly journals Association of Serum Serotonin and Pain in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain before and after Spinal Surgery

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afshin Farhanchi ◽  
Behrouz Karkhanei ◽  
Negar Amani ◽  
Mashhood Aghajanloo ◽  
Elham Khanlarzadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Numerical Rating Scale ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Postoperative Serum ◽  
Serum Serotonin

Introduction. In this study we are aiming to evaluate the changes of serum serotonin and its association with pain in patients suffering from chronic low back pain before and after lumbar discectomy surgery. Patients and Methods. A prospective study was performed on the patients referring to the outpatient clinic in Besat hospital, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran, during 2016. A 2 mL fasting blood sample was collected from each patient at preoperative day 1 and postoperative day 14 and they were measured for level of serum serotonin. Besides, all patients were asked for severity of their low back pain in preoperative day 1 and postoperative day 14 and scored their pain from zero to ten using a Numerical Rating Scale. Results. Forty patients with the mean age of 47 ± 13 yrs/old (range 25–77) including 15 (37.5%) males were enrolled into the study. The overall mean score of preoperative pain was significantly decreased from 7.4 ± 2.18 (range 4–10) to the postoperative pain score 3.87 ± 2.92 (range 0–10) (P < .001). The overall levels of pre- and postoperative serum serotonin were 3.37 ± 1.27 (range 1.1–6.4) and 3.58 ± 1.32 (range .94–7.1) ng/mL, respectively, with no significant difference (P = .09). The levels of pre- and postoperative serum serotonin were significantly higher in males and patients older than 50 yrs/old compared to the females and patients younger than 50 yrs/old, respectively (P = .03 and .005, respectively). A significant inverse correlation between the postoperative levels of pain and serum serotonin was observed (r = -.36 and P = .02). Conclusion. A negative medium strength linear relationship may exist between the postoperative serum serotonin and low back pain.

scholarly journals Open release versus radiofrequency microtenotomy in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a prospective randomized controlled trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharine Hamlin ◽  
Christopher Munro ◽  
Scott L. Barker ◽  
Sean McKenna ◽  
Kapil Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Grip Strength ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Numerical Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Lateral Epicondylitis ◽  
Open Release ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Significant Difference

Background Optimal surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis remains uncertain. Recently, radiofrequency microtenotomy (RFMT) has been proposed as a suitable treatment. We compared RFMT with standard open release (OR) in this prospective randomized controlled trial. Methods In total, 41 patients with symptoms for at least 6 months were randomized into two groups: 23 patients had RFMT and 18 had OR. Two patients from RFMT withdrew. Each patient underwent Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score, grip strength and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores pre-operatively and at 6 weeks. Pain and DASH scores were repeated at 6 months and 12 months. Results NRS pain scores improved by 4.8 points for RFMT and by 3.9 points for OR. There was a significant improvement in both groups from pre-operative scores, although there was no statistically significant difference between the groups at 1 year. Grip strength improved by 31% in the RFMT group compared to 38% in OR. There was no significant difference between the initial and 6 weeks scores or between treatments. At 1 year, DASH was 39.8 points for RFMT and 24.4 points for OR. There was a significant improvement in both groups from pre-operative scores, although there was no statistically significant difference between the groups at 1 year. Conclusions Both groups showed significant improvements and similar benefit to the patient. The results of the present study do not show any benefit of RFMT over the standard OR. As a result of the extra expense of RFMT, we therefore recommend that OR is offered as the standard surgical management.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Ketamine for Acute Pain Management in the Emergency Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (17) ◽  
pp. 3978
Author(s):  
Yee Sin Seak ◽  
Junainah Nor ◽  
Tuan Hairulnizam Tuan Kamauzaman ◽  
Ariff Arithra ◽  
Md Asiful Islam
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Acute Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Emergency Setting ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Acute Pain Management ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Due to overcrowding, personnel shortages, or problematic intravenous (IV) cannulation, acute pain management is often sub-optimal in emergency departments (EDs). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intranasal (IN) ketamine for adult acute pain in the emergency setting. We searched and identified studies up to 21 May 2021 via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, and Google Scholar. The random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used to estimate mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs). The I2 statistic and Cochran’s Q test were used to determine heterogeneity. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020213391). Seven randomised controlled trials were included with a total of 1760 patients. There was no significant difference in pain scores comparing IN ketamine with IV analgesics or placebo at 5 (MD 0.94, p = 0.26), 15 (MD 0.15, p = 0.74), 25 (MD 0.24, p = 0.62), 30 (MD −0.05, p = 0.87), and 60 (MD −0.42, p = 0.53) minutes. There was also no significant difference in the need for rescue analgesics between IN ketamine and IV analgesics (OR 1.66, 95% CI: 0.57−4.86, p = 0.35, I2 = 70%). Only mild adverse effects were observed in patients who received IN ketamine. Our results suggest that IN ketamine is non-inferior to IV analgesics and may have a role in acute pain management among adults in the ED.

scholarly journals Isolating peripheral effects of endogenous opioids in modulating exertional breathlessness in people with moderate or severe COPD: a randomised controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 00153-2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Currow ◽  
Toby Hunt ◽  
Sandra Louw ◽  
Danny Eckert ◽  
Peter Allcroft ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Exercise Capacity ◽  
Opioid Receptors ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Numerical Rating Scale ◽  
Endogenous Opioids ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Regression Slope ◽  
End Point ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Peripheral Opioid Receptors

Question addressed by the studyEndogenous opioids (endorphins) have been reported to modulate exercise-induced breathlessness, but the relative contribution of peripheral opioid receptors has not been tested.Materials, participants and methodsThis was a double-blind, randomised, three-arm, cross-over trial in outpatients with spirometry-verified moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Participants undertook an incremental symptom-limited treadmill test followed by five endurance treadmill tests at 75% of their maximal work rate; two tests for familiarisation and three tests 30 min after intravenous injection of either methylnaltrexone 0.3 mg·kg−1 (blocking peripheral opioid receptors only) or naloxone 0.1 mg·kg−1 (blocking both central and peripheral opioid receptors) or normal saline, in randomised order. The primary end-point was the regression slope between breathlessness intensity (0–10 numerical rating scale) and oxygen consumption (V′O2) during the walk tests, comparing methylnaltrexone and placebo using a paired t-test.Results17 participants completed the trial: median (range) 66 (55–82) years; 15 males; mean±sd forced expiratory volume (FEV1) 53.8±17.6% predicted; FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio 0.55±15.9. There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in the primary end-point (regression slope of breathlessness intensity and V′O2) for methylnaltrexone (p=0.498) or naloxone (p=0.804), compared to placebo. Secondary outcomes were similar between the three treatment groups, including peak and mean breathlessness intensity and unpleasantness, exercise capacity, endurance time and leg fatigue.Answer to the questionBlocking peripheral opioid receptors (methylnaltrexone) or peripheral and central opioid receptors (naloxone) did not appear to modulate breathlessness intensity nor exercise capacity when compared with placebo (no blockade).

scholarly journals Tramadol/dexketoprofen (TRAM/DKP) compared with tramadol/paracetamol in moderate to severe acute pain: results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo and active-controlled, parallel group trial in the impacted third molar extraction pain model (DAVID study)

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e023715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cosme Gay-Escoda ◽  
Magdi Hanna ◽  
Antonio Montero ◽  
Thomas Dietrich ◽  
Stefano Milleri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Relief ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Acute Pain ◽  
Severe Pain ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Surgical Removal ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Time Points

ObjectivesTo compare efficacy/safety of oral tramadol 75 mg/dexketoprofen 25 mg (TRAM/DKP) and TRAM 75 mg/paracetamol 650 mg (TRAM/paracetamol) in moderate to severe pain following surgical removal of impacted lower third molar.DesignMulticentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIIb study.ParticipantsHealthy adult patients scheduled for surgical extraction of at least one fully/partially impacted lower third molar requiring bone manipulation. 654 patients were randomised and 653 were eligible for analysis.InterventionsSurgery was performed under local anaesthetic. No sedation was permitted. Patients rated pain intensity (PI) using an 11-Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (0 no pain; 10 worst pain). Participants experiencing moderate/severe pain (≥4) within 4 hours of surgery were randomised (2:2:1 ratio) to a single oral dose of TRAM/DKP 75/25 mg, TRAM/paracetamol 75/650 mg or placebo.Main outcome measuresEfficacy was based patients’ electronic diaries. Analgesia and pain were recorded as follows: pain relief (PAR) on a 5-point Verbal Rating Scale (0=‘no relief’, 1=‘a little (perceptible) relief’, 2=‘some (meaningful) relief’, 3=‘lot of relief’, 4=‘complete relief’) at the predefined postdose time points t15 min, t30 min, t1 hour, t1.5 hour, t2 hour, t4 hour, t6 hour and t8 hour and PI on the 11-point NRS at t0 and at the same predefined postdose time points. Onset of analgesia documented using double stopwatch method over a 2-hour period. Primary endpoint was total pain relief over 6 hours (TOTPAR6). Rescue medication was available during the treatment period.ResultsTRAM/DKP was superior to TRAM/paracetamol and placebo at the primary endpoint TOTPAR6 (p<0.0001). Mean (SD) TOTPAR6 in the TRAM/DKP group was 13 (6.97), while those in the active control and placebo groups were 9.1 (7.65) and 1.9 (3.89), respectively. Superiority of TRAM/DKP over active comparator and placebo was observed at all secondary endpoints. Incidence of adverse events was comparable between active groups.ConclusionsTRAM/DKP (75/25 mg) is effective and superior to TRAM/paracetamol (75/650 mg) in relieving moderate to severe acute pain following surgical removal of impacted lower third molar, with a faster onset of action, greater and durable analgesia, together with a favourable safety profile.Trial registration numberEudraCT 2015-004152-22 and NCT02777970.

scholarly journals Undergraduate Students’ Acceptance of a Reciprocating One-File System for Endodontic Treatment

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (03) ◽  
pp. 393-396
Author(s):  
Benjamin Mahmoodi ◽  
Adriano Azaripour ◽  
Kawe Sagheb ◽  
Keyvan Sagheb ◽  
Brita Willershausen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
File System ◽  
Numerical Rating Scale ◽  
File Systems ◽  
Subjective Assessment ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
Undergraduate Teaching ◽  
Practical Training ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Objectives Reciprocating endodontic one-file systems are a comparatively new method for root canal shaping. Even though the mechanical properties are comparable to modern rotating mechanical systems, data about subjective assessment and application quality are scarce. This study evaluates the reciprocating one-file system in undergraduate education. Materials and Methods A total of 42 undergraduate students without experience regarding reciprocating file systems filled in a questionnaire in four different points in time (t 1–t 4) anonymously. The questionnaire was based on a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 to 10. Statistical Analysis A least significant difference post-hoc analysis comparing the group average values was performed. The adjusted level of significance was p < 0.004 after Bonferroni correction. Results All rating scores increased after the first theoretical instruction. After the first practical training in artificial root canals in resin blocks and extracted teeth (t 2), the estimation of “time efficiency” (p = 0.002), “handling” (p < 0.001), and “overall impression” (p < 0.001) improved significantly. The “overall impression” remained constant and showed no significant changes after the first practical training. Conclusions Reciprocating systems seem to show a good acceptance among first time users. Initial concerns about “work safety” decrease during every step of the educational process. Reciprocating one-file systems are a safe and well-accepted method in undergraduate teaching.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document