Comparative evaluation of two different doses of nebulized intraperitoneal dexamethasone on postoperative pain in laparoscopic surgeries.

IF 1.1 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Neha Shrivastava, Rashmi Taneja, Mamta Kumari, Rajesh Sood, Niharika Grover
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of two different doses of nebulized intraperitoneal dexamethasone on postoperative pain in laparoscopic surgeries.","authors":"Neha Shrivastava, Rashmi Taneja, Mamta Kumari, Rajesh Sood, Niharika Grover","doi":"10.4103/joacp.joacp_232_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Postoperative pain is a major cause of discomfort after laparoscopic surgeries and thus necessitates prevention and treatment. This study aims to evaluate and compare two different doses of intraperitoneally nebulized (aerosol size: 0.4-4.5 micrometers) dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative pain.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>In this double-blind, randomized control study, 135 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries were randomly assigned to three groups after obtaining ethical committee clearance and CTRI registration. Intraperitoneal nebulization was performed using the Aeroneb device, with group A receiving 16 mg dexamethasone, group B receiving 8 mg dexamethasone, and group C receiving 0.9% normal saline. The primary outcome was assessed by measuring visceral, somatic, and referred pain using a visual analog scale (VAS) at 6 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included VAS at 1 and 24 hours, the hemodynamic response to pneumo-peritoneum, 24-hour anti-emetics, and opioid consumption.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>VAS score at 6 hours was 0.9 ± 1.06 in group A, 1.7 ± 1.45 in group B, and 2.3 ± 1.87 in group C for referred pain; the values were statistically significant (<i>P</i> = 0.01). VAS score was 0.7 ± 0.76 in group A, 1.7 ± 1.82 in group B, and 2.2 ± 2.06 in group C for dull aching pain; the results were statistically significant at 24 hours (<i>P</i> = 0.001). None of the values at any time point were statistically significant (<i>P</i> < 0.05) for incisional pain. The rise in heart rate after 5 minutes of pneumoperitoneum was the least in group A compared to group C (<i>P</i> = 0.01). Group C had the highest consumption of anti-emetics and rescue analgesics (<i>P</i> = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Intraperitoneal dexamethasone nebulization of 16 mg and 8 mg both are equi-effective in decreasing the severity of pain after laparoscopic surgeries compared to normal saline nebulization (<i>P</i> = 0.001).</p>","PeriodicalId":14946,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","volume":"41 2","pages":"250-256"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12002692/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_232_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Postoperative pain is a major cause of discomfort after laparoscopic surgeries and thus necessitates prevention and treatment. This study aims to evaluate and compare two different doses of intraperitoneally nebulized (aerosol size: 0.4-4.5 micrometers) dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative pain.

Material and methods: In this double-blind, randomized control study, 135 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries were randomly assigned to three groups after obtaining ethical committee clearance and CTRI registration. Intraperitoneal nebulization was performed using the Aeroneb device, with group A receiving 16 mg dexamethasone, group B receiving 8 mg dexamethasone, and group C receiving 0.9% normal saline. The primary outcome was assessed by measuring visceral, somatic, and referred pain using a visual analog scale (VAS) at 6 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included VAS at 1 and 24 hours, the hemodynamic response to pneumo-peritoneum, 24-hour anti-emetics, and opioid consumption.

Results: VAS score at 6 hours was 0.9 ± 1.06 in group A, 1.7 ± 1.45 in group B, and 2.3 ± 1.87 in group C for referred pain; the values were statistically significant (P = 0.01). VAS score was 0.7 ± 0.76 in group A, 1.7 ± 1.82 in group B, and 2.2 ± 2.06 in group C for dull aching pain; the results were statistically significant at 24 hours (P = 0.001). None of the values at any time point were statistically significant (P < 0.05) for incisional pain. The rise in heart rate after 5 minutes of pneumoperitoneum was the least in group A compared to group C (P = 0.01). Group C had the highest consumption of anti-emetics and rescue analgesics (P = 0.001).

Conclusions: Intraperitoneal dexamethasone nebulization of 16 mg and 8 mg both are equi-effective in decreasing the severity of pain after laparoscopic surgeries compared to normal saline nebulization (P = 0.001).

Abstract Image

两种不同剂量地塞米松雾化腹腔内对腹腔镜手术术后疼痛的比较评价。
背景和目的:术后疼痛是腹腔镜手术后不适的主要原因,因此需要预防和治疗。本研究旨在评价和比较两种不同剂量的地塞米松腹腔内雾化(气溶胶大小:0.4-4.5微米)对术后疼痛的预防作用。材料与方法:本研究为双盲随机对照研究,135例腹腔镜手术患者在获得伦理委员会批准和CTRI登记后,随机分为三组。采用Aeroneb装置腹腔雾化,A组给予地塞米松16 mg, B组给予地塞米松8 mg, C组给予0.9%生理盐水。术后6小时,通过视觉模拟评分(VAS)测量内脏、躯体和牵涉性疼痛来评估主要结局。次要结果包括1小时和24小时的VAS、对腹膜充气的血流动力学反应、24小时止吐药和阿片类药物的消耗。结果:A组6 h VAS评分为0.9±1.06,B组为1.7±1.45,C组为2.3±1.87;差异均有统计学意义(P = 0.01)。隐痛VAS评分A组为0.7±0.76,B组为1.7±1.82,C组为2.2±2.06;24小时的结果有统计学意义(P = 0.001)。切口疼痛各时间点差异均无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。气腹5分钟后,A组心率升高幅度最小(P = 0.01)。C组止吐药和抢救镇痛药用量最高(P = 0.001)。结论:与生理盐水雾化相比,腹腔注射地塞米松16mg和8mg在减轻腹腔镜手术后疼痛程度方面同样有效(P = 0.001)。
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
129
期刊介绍: The JOACP publishes original peer-reviewed research and clinical work in all branches of anaesthesiology, pain, critical care and perioperative medicine including the application to basic sciences. In addition, the journal publishes review articles, special articles, brief communications/reports, case reports, and reports of new equipment, letters to editor, book reviews and obituaries. It is international in scope and comprehensive in coverage.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信