PCA ketamine-morphine versus PCA morphine as post-operative analgesia in colorectal surgery.

Q3 Medicine
Nurul Akasya Adnan, Chian Yong Liu, Nita Salina Abdullah
{"title":"PCA ketamine-morphine versus PCA morphine as post-operative analgesia in colorectal surgery.","authors":"Nurul Akasya Adnan, Chian Yong Liu, Nita Salina Abdullah","doi":"10.5055/jom.0888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Ketamine has undergone a recent resurgence of interest as an opioid-sparing agent in pain management. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) ketamine-morphine in comparison to conventional PCA morphine alone as post-operative analgesia in colorectal surgery patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Double-blind, randomized, controlled study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>This study was conducted at a single, tertiary hospital.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Sixty patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery were randomly assigned into two groups.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Group A received PCA ketamine-morphine 0.5:0.5 mg mL<sup>-1</sup>, while Group B received PCA morphine 1 mg mL<sup>-1</sup> as post-operative analgesia.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Patients' pain scores, total PCA demands, cumulative morphine consumption, side effects, and their overall satisfaction score were recorded and analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, there was no significant difference in pain score in both groups, except at 24-hour intervals where Group A had significantly lower mean pain score at rest (1.10 ± 1.37 vs 2.10 ± 1.65, p = 0.017). Total PCA demands were comparable between both groups. Cumulative morphine consumptions however were significantly lower in Group A at all intervals with 24.7 ± 15.2 vs 48.9 ± 30.4 mg (p < 0.001) at 24-hour interval and 38.3 ± 22.4 vs 77.8 ± 46.3 mg (p = 0.001) at 48-hour interval. There was no significant difference in the incidence of side effects and overall satisfaction score in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PCA ketamine-morphine was as effective as PCA morphine as post-operative analgesia in colorectal surgery, with comparable pain scores, PCA demands, side effects, and significant reduction in morphine consumption.</p>","PeriodicalId":16601,"journal":{"name":"Journal of opioid management","volume":"21 2","pages":"141-148"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of opioid management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5055/jom.0888","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Ketamine has undergone a recent resurgence of interest as an opioid-sparing agent in pain management. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) ketamine-morphine in comparison to conventional PCA morphine alone as post-operative analgesia in colorectal surgery patients.

Design: Double-blind, randomized, controlled study.

Setting: This study was conducted at a single, tertiary hospital.

Patients: Sixty patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery were randomly assigned into two groups.

Interventions: Group A received PCA ketamine-morphine 0.5:0.5 mg mL-1, while Group B received PCA morphine 1 mg mL-1 as post-operative analgesia.

Main outcome measures: Patients' pain scores, total PCA demands, cumulative morphine consumption, side effects, and their overall satisfaction score were recorded and analyzed.

Results: Overall, there was no significant difference in pain score in both groups, except at 24-hour intervals where Group A had significantly lower mean pain score at rest (1.10 ± 1.37 vs 2.10 ± 1.65, p = 0.017). Total PCA demands were comparable between both groups. Cumulative morphine consumptions however were significantly lower in Group A at all intervals with 24.7 ± 15.2 vs 48.9 ± 30.4 mg (p < 0.001) at 24-hour interval and 38.3 ± 22.4 vs 77.8 ± 46.3 mg (p = 0.001) at 48-hour interval. There was no significant difference in the incidence of side effects and overall satisfaction score in both groups.

Conclusions: PCA ketamine-morphine was as effective as PCA morphine as post-operative analgesia in colorectal surgery, with comparable pain scores, PCA demands, side effects, and significant reduction in morphine consumption.

氯胺酮-吗啡与吗啡在结直肠癌术后镇痛中的作用。
目的:氯胺酮作为一种阿片类药物节约剂在疼痛管理中最近重新引起了人们的兴趣。本研究的目的是评价患者自控镇痛(PCA)氯胺酮-吗啡与常规PCA吗啡单独用于结直肠手术患者术后镇痛的效果。设计:双盲、随机、对照研究。环境:本研究在一家单一的三级医院进行。患者:60例择期结肠手术患者随机分为两组。干预措施:A组给予PCA氯胺酮-吗啡0.5:0.5 mg mL-1, B组给予PCA吗啡1 mg mL-1作为术后镇痛。主要观察指标:记录并分析患者疼痛评分、PCA总需求、吗啡累计用量、不良反应及患者总体满意度。结果:总体而言,两组疼痛评分无显著差异,但在24小时间隔内,A组静息时平均疼痛评分明显低于A组(1.10±1.37 vs 2.10±1.65,p = 0.017)。两组间PCA总需求具有可比性。然而,A组在所有时间间隔内的吗啡累积用量均显著降低,24小时间隔为24.7±15.2 mg vs 48.9±30.4 mg (p < 0.001), 48小时间隔为38.3±22.4 mg vs 77.8±46.3 mg (p = 0.001)。两组患者的不良反应发生率和总体满意度评分差异无统计学意义。结论:在结直肠手术中,PCA氯胺酮-吗啡与PCA吗啡的术后镇痛效果相同,疼痛评分、PCA需求、副作用相当,吗啡用量显著减少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of opioid management
Journal of opioid management Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: The Journal of Opioid Management deals with all aspects of opioids. From basic science, pre-clinical, clinical, abuse, compliance and addiction medicine, the journal provides and unbiased forum for researchers and clinicians to explore and manage the complexities of opioid prescription.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信