A comparison of the efficacy and rate of side-effects of mefenamic acid and naproxen in adult patients following elective tonsillectomy: A randomized double-blind study

G. Graf , M. Jelen , D. Jamnig , H. Schabus , W. Pipam , R. Likar
{"title":"A comparison of the efficacy and rate of side-effects of mefenamic acid and naproxen in adult patients following elective tonsillectomy: A randomized double-blind study","authors":"G. Graf ,&nbsp;M. Jelen ,&nbsp;D. Jamnig ,&nbsp;H. Schabus ,&nbsp;W. Pipam ,&nbsp;R. Likar","doi":"10.1016/j.acpain.2008.07.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and side-effects of mefenamic acid as compared to </span>naproxen<span> administered postoperatively to patients following elective tonsillectomy.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Fifty patients received either naproxen or mefenamic acid given postoperatively in a randomized fashion following elective tonsillectomy. General anaesthesia<span><span> for the tonsillectomies was administered in a standardized fashion. Pain intensity was assessed postoperatively at rest and on exertion using the numeric rating scale (NRS) and </span>analgesic consumption. The side-effects were also documented.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Forty-one patients were included in the assessment. There were no significant differences with respect to the demographic data. After the 48th postoperative hour the NRS score demonstrated a significant difference in pain intensity at rest and on exertion in favour of the mefenamic acid group. There was no difference in the rate of side-effects between the two groups.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Mefenamic acid is a more effective analgesic than naproxen given postoperatively following elective tonsillectomies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100023,"journal":{"name":"Acute Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.acpain.2008.07.003","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acute Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366007108001484","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and side-effects of mefenamic acid as compared to naproxen administered postoperatively to patients following elective tonsillectomy.

Methods

Fifty patients received either naproxen or mefenamic acid given postoperatively in a randomized fashion following elective tonsillectomy. General anaesthesia for the tonsillectomies was administered in a standardized fashion. Pain intensity was assessed postoperatively at rest and on exertion using the numeric rating scale (NRS) and analgesic consumption. The side-effects were also documented.

Results

Forty-one patients were included in the assessment. There were no significant differences with respect to the demographic data. After the 48th postoperative hour the NRS score demonstrated a significant difference in pain intensity at rest and on exertion in favour of the mefenamic acid group. There was no difference in the rate of side-effects between the two groups.

Conclusion

Mefenamic acid is a more effective analgesic than naproxen given postoperatively following elective tonsillectomies.

甲氧胺酸和萘普生在成人选择性扁桃体切除术后的疗效和副反应率的比较:一项随机双盲研究
本研究的目的是评估甲氧胺酸与萘普生对选择性扁桃体切除术后患者的疗效和副作用。方法50例择期扁桃体切除术后随机给予萘普生或甲氧胺酸治疗。扁桃体切除术的全身麻醉以标准化的方式进行。采用数值评定量表(NRS)和镇痛药用量评估术后休息和运动时的疼痛强度。副作用也有记录。结果41例患者纳入评估。在人口统计数据方面没有显著差异。术后48小时后,NRS评分显示休息和运动时的疼痛强度有显著差异,甲胺酸组更有利。两组之间的副作用发生率没有差异。结论甲氧胺酸是选择性扁桃体切除术后较萘普生更有效的镇痛药。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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