We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
A randomized, double-blind trial of pre-emptive local anesthesia in day-case knee arthroscopy.
Arthroscopy 2003 January
PURPOSE: The study goal was to assess the efficacy of pre-emptive analgesia in a clinical setting.
TYPE OF STUDY: A block randomized, double-blind design was used.
METHODS: Subjects were 40 patients undergoing day-case arthroscopy of the knee. The trial group received a prophylactic injection of bupivacaine with adrenaline. After surgery, a placebo injection was given. The postsurgical injection group received identical injections in reverse order. There was no difference in the mean dose of propofol used to maintain general anesthesia between groups: 15 mg/kg/h (standard deviation [SD] = 2.85) trial versus 14.6 mg/kg/h (SD = 1.96) postsurgical injection (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.14 to 1.94).
RESULTS: Although no statistically significant difference was observed in postoperative pain scores at 15, 30, or 60 minutes, there was a trend for the trial group to require less analgesia in recovery (chi2 = 9.74; P =.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic local anesthesia confers no statistically significant reduction in pain scores or perioperative general anesthetic requirements as compared with postoperative administration. The pre-emptive effect in clinical practice may be less dramatic than that observed in more controlled animal models. Further studies are required to investigate the magnitude of the pre-emptive effect in clinical practice.
TYPE OF STUDY: A block randomized, double-blind design was used.
METHODS: Subjects were 40 patients undergoing day-case arthroscopy of the knee. The trial group received a prophylactic injection of bupivacaine with adrenaline. After surgery, a placebo injection was given. The postsurgical injection group received identical injections in reverse order. There was no difference in the mean dose of propofol used to maintain general anesthesia between groups: 15 mg/kg/h (standard deviation [SD] = 2.85) trial versus 14.6 mg/kg/h (SD = 1.96) postsurgical injection (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.14 to 1.94).
RESULTS: Although no statistically significant difference was observed in postoperative pain scores at 15, 30, or 60 minutes, there was a trend for the trial group to require less analgesia in recovery (chi2 = 9.74; P =.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic local anesthesia confers no statistically significant reduction in pain scores or perioperative general anesthetic requirements as compared with postoperative administration. The pre-emptive effect in clinical practice may be less dramatic than that observed in more controlled animal models. Further studies are required to investigate the magnitude of the pre-emptive effect in clinical practice.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app