Four analgesic techniques for shockwave lithotripsy: Eutectic mixture local anesthetic is a good alternative

被引:29
作者
Basar, H
Yilmaz, E
Ozcan, S
Buyukkocak, U
Sari, F
Apan, A
Batislam, E
机构
[1] Kirikkale Univ, Dept Anesthesiol, TR-71100 Kirikkale, Turkey
[2] Kirikkale Univ, Intens Care Unit, TR-71100 Kirikkale, Turkey
[3] Kirikkale Univ, Dept Urol, TR-71100 Kirikkale, Turkey
关键词
D O I
10.1089/089277903321196706
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background and Purpose: Various sedative and analgesic medication has been used for shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of different anesthesia modalities in these patients. Patients and Methods: One hundred patients were randomly divided into four groups. The first (Group F) received fentanyl 1 mug/kg intravenously (IV), the second (Group D) received diclofenac sodium 1 mg/kg-intramuscularly (IM), the third (Group T) received tramadol 1.5 mg/kg IM, and the fourth (Group E) was given 15 g of eutectic mixture local anesthetic (EMLA) cream containing lidocaine and prilocaine. After routine preoperative evaluation, all patients received midazolam 2 mg IV 5 minutes before lithotripsy for sedative premedication. In all groups, a supplemental 25-mug bolus of fentanyl was administered IV when patients complained of pain, moved, or grimaced in response to the shockwaves. Pain intensity was evaluated on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). The level of sedation was determined using the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAS/S). Side effects such as bradypnea, oxygen desaturation, bradycardia, pruritus, and nausea and vomiting were recorded. Results: There were no statistically significant differences among the four groups with regard to VAS, OAS/S scores, or side effects. In Group F, the mean arterial pressure was decreased significantly at 10 and 20 minutes. The patients in this group also manifested a decrease of oxygen saturation at the first, tenth, and twentieth minutes and the end of SWL. Conclusion: Application of EMLA cream was as safe and effective as fentanyl, diclofenac, and tramadol,. and reduction of the fentanyl dose during SWL was possible.
引用
收藏
页码:3 / 6
页数:4
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
ARENDTNIELSEN L, 1990, ACTA DERM-VENEREOL, V70, P314
[2]   THE USE OF LOCAL-ANESTHESIA IN 2ND GENERATION EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK-WAVE LITHOTRIPSY - EUTECTIC MIXTURE OF LOCAL-ANESTHETICS [J].
BIERKENS, AF ;
MAES, RM ;
HENDRIKX, AJM ;
ERDOS, AF ;
DEVRIES, JDM ;
DEBRUYNE, FMJ .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1991, 146 (02) :287-289
[3]   DEPTH AND DURATION OF SKIN ANALGESIA TO NEEDLE INSERTION AFTER TOPICAL APPLICATION OF EMLA CREAM [J].
BJERRING, P ;
ARENDTNIELSEN, L .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 1990, 64 (02) :173-177
[4]  
Broome IJ, 1999, ANAESTHESIA, V54, P289
[5]   CURRENT STATE AND FUTURE-DEVELOPMENTS OF NONINVASIVE TREATMENT OF HUMAN URINARY STONES WITH EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK-WAVE LITHOTRIPSY [J].
CHAUSSY, CG ;
FUCHS, GJ .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1989, 141 (03) :782-789
[6]   Comparison of ketorolac and diclofenac in the treatment of renal colic [J].
Cohen, E ;
Hafner, R ;
Rotenberg, Z ;
Fadilla, M ;
Garty, M .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 1998, 54 (06) :455-458
[7]   EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK-WAVE LITHOTRIPSY - MULTICENTER STUDY OF KIDNEY AND UPPER URETER VERSUS MIDDLE AND LOWER URETER TREATMENTS [J].
EHRETH, JT ;
DRACH, GW ;
ARNETT, ML ;
BARNETT, RB ;
GOVAN, D ;
LINGEMAN, J ;
LOENING, SA ;
NEWMAN, DM ;
TUDOR, JM ;
SAADA, S .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1994, 152 (05) :1379-1385
[8]   The comparative effectiveness of fentanyl and its newer analogs during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy under monitored anesthesia care [J].
Gesztesi, Z ;
Rego, MMS ;
White, PF .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2000, 90 (03) :567-570
[9]   Analgesia during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy using the Medstone STS lithotriptor: A randomized prospective study [J].
Issa, MM ;
El-Galley, R ;
McNamara, DE ;
Segall, S .
UROLOGY, 1999, 54 (04) :625-628
[10]   TOPICAL ANESTHESIA FOR EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK-WAVE LITHOTRIPSY [J].
MCDONALD, PF ;
BERRY, AM .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 1992, 69 (04) :399-400