使用奈帕芬胺治疗酒精辅助和经皮层光屈光性角膜切除术的术后疼痛比较:一项新颖的研究。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Nir Gomel, Nadav Shemesh, Nir Sorkin, Nadav Levinger, Shmuel Levinger, Ami Hirsch, Asaf Achiron, Eliya Levinger
{"title":"使用奈帕芬胺治疗酒精辅助和经皮层光屈光性角膜切除术的术后疼痛比较:一项新颖的研究。","authors":"Nir Gomel, Nadav Shemesh, Nir Sorkin, Nadav Levinger, Shmuel Levinger, Ami Hirsch, Asaf Achiron, Eliya Levinger","doi":"10.1007/s40123-024-01040-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The study aimed to compare postoperative pain between alcohol-assisted and transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy in patients who received the novel analgesic preoperative nepafenac treatment 2 days preoperatively and 3 days postoperatively. Pain, stinging, tearing, light sensitivity, and stress levels were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included a retrospective analysis of 55 patients divided into two groups: bilateral alcohol-assisted photorefractive keratectomy (aa-PRK) and transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (transepithelial-PRK). Nepafenac was administered for pain control for all patients, with patients receiving four drops for 2 days before the surgery and 3 days postoperatively per clinical instructions. Patients completed questionnaires on the day of the surgery and for the first 5 days postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed using XLSTAT (version 2023.1.2). t-Test was used to analyze and compare pain and symptom levels and Fisher's exact test for categorical data. p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study examined 55 patients (49% female) with a mean age of 25.11 ± 6.81 years who had undergone bilateral surface refractive surgery to correct myopic errors. The mean baseline standard error (SE) was -3.16 ± 2.20 D. Among these patients, 27 patients underwent aa-PRK and 28 patients underwent transepithelial-PRK. Higher levels of pain were significant in the aa-PRK group (p = 0.003). However, there was no significant difference between the groups in the average levels of stinging, tearing, or light sensation. Additionally, stress levels decreased over time in both groups, with levels becoming almost equal after 5 days, and there was no significant difference in the average stress levels between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study found that patients who underwent the transepithelial-PRK procedure had significantly lower pain levels compared with those who underwent aa-PRK after being treated with nepafenac per protocol. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of stinging, tearing, light sensation, and stress levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":19623,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology and Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Postoperative Pain Comparison Between Alcohol-Assisted and Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy Using Nepafenac Treatment: A Novel Study.\",\"authors\":\"Nir Gomel, Nadav Shemesh, Nir Sorkin, Nadav Levinger, Shmuel Levinger, Ami Hirsch, Asaf Achiron, Eliya Levinger\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40123-024-01040-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The study aimed to compare postoperative pain between alcohol-assisted and transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy in patients who received the novel analgesic preoperative nepafenac treatment 2 days preoperatively and 3 days postoperatively. Pain, stinging, tearing, light sensitivity, and stress levels were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included a retrospective analysis of 55 patients divided into two groups: bilateral alcohol-assisted photorefractive keratectomy (aa-PRK) and transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (transepithelial-PRK). Nepafenac was administered for pain control for all patients, with patients receiving four drops for 2 days before the surgery and 3 days postoperatively per clinical instructions. Patients completed questionnaires on the day of the surgery and for the first 5 days postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed using XLSTAT (version 2023.1.2). t-Test was used to analyze and compare pain and symptom levels and Fisher's exact test for categorical data. p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study examined 55 patients (49% female) with a mean age of 25.11 ± 6.81 years who had undergone bilateral surface refractive surgery to correct myopic errors. The mean baseline standard error (SE) was -3.16 ± 2.20 D. Among these patients, 27 patients underwent aa-PRK and 28 patients underwent transepithelial-PRK. Higher levels of pain were significant in the aa-PRK group (p = 0.003). However, there was no significant difference between the groups in the average levels of stinging, tearing, or light sensation. Additionally, stress levels decreased over time in both groups, with levels becoming almost equal after 5 days, and there was no significant difference in the average stress levels between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study found that patients who underwent the transepithelial-PRK procedure had significantly lower pain levels compared with those who underwent aa-PRK after being treated with nepafenac per protocol. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of stinging, tearing, light sensation, and stress levels.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19623,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmology and Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmology and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-024-01040-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-024-01040-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介该研究旨在比较酒精辅助和经皮层光性屈光性角膜切除术的术后疼痛情况,术前 2 天和术后 3 天,患者均接受了新型镇痛药奈帕芬酸的术前治疗。对疼痛、刺痛、流泪、光敏感和应激水平进行了评估:该研究对 55 例患者进行了回顾性分析,分为两组:双侧酒精辅助光屈光性角膜切除术(aa-PRK)和经皮层光屈光性角膜切除术(transsepithelial-PRK)。所有患者均使用奈帕芬胺(Nepafenac)控制疼痛,根据临床说明,患者在手术前 2 天和术后 3 天分别滴用 4 滴。患者在手术当天和术后前 5 天填写了调查问卷。使用 XLSTAT(版本 2023.1.2)进行统计分析。t 检验用于分析和比较疼痛和症状水平,费雪精确检验用于分析和比较分类数据:研究共调查了55名接受过双侧表面屈光手术矫正近视的患者(49%为女性),平均年龄为(25.11 ± 6.81)岁。在这些患者中,27 名患者接受了 aa-PRK 手术,28 名患者接受了经上皮-PRK 手术。aa-PRK 组患者的疼痛程度明显更高(p = 0.003)。不过,两组患者在刺痛、撕裂或轻微感觉的平均水平上没有明显差异。此外,随着时间的推移,两组患者的应激水平都有所下降,5 天后两组患者的应激水平基本持平,两组患者的平均应激水平没有明显差异:研究发现,与接受 aa-PRK 手术的患者相比,接受经上皮-PRK 手术的患者在按方案接受奈帕芬酸治疗后,疼痛程度明显降低。不过,两组患者在刺痛、撕裂、光感和压力水平方面没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Postoperative Pain Comparison Between Alcohol-Assisted and Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy Using Nepafenac Treatment: A Novel Study.

Introduction: The study aimed to compare postoperative pain between alcohol-assisted and transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy in patients who received the novel analgesic preoperative nepafenac treatment 2 days preoperatively and 3 days postoperatively. Pain, stinging, tearing, light sensitivity, and stress levels were evaluated.

Methods: The study included a retrospective analysis of 55 patients divided into two groups: bilateral alcohol-assisted photorefractive keratectomy (aa-PRK) and transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (transepithelial-PRK). Nepafenac was administered for pain control for all patients, with patients receiving four drops for 2 days before the surgery and 3 days postoperatively per clinical instructions. Patients completed questionnaires on the day of the surgery and for the first 5 days postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed using XLSTAT (version 2023.1.2). t-Test was used to analyze and compare pain and symptom levels and Fisher's exact test for categorical data. p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results: The study examined 55 patients (49% female) with a mean age of 25.11 ± 6.81 years who had undergone bilateral surface refractive surgery to correct myopic errors. The mean baseline standard error (SE) was -3.16 ± 2.20 D. Among these patients, 27 patients underwent aa-PRK and 28 patients underwent transepithelial-PRK. Higher levels of pain were significant in the aa-PRK group (p = 0.003). However, there was no significant difference between the groups in the average levels of stinging, tearing, or light sensation. Additionally, stress levels decreased over time in both groups, with levels becoming almost equal after 5 days, and there was no significant difference in the average stress levels between the two groups.

Conclusions: The study found that patients who underwent the transepithelial-PRK procedure had significantly lower pain levels compared with those who underwent aa-PRK after being treated with nepafenac per protocol. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of stinging, tearing, light sensation, and stress levels.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ophthalmology and Therapy
Ophthalmology and Therapy OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
3.00%
发文量
157
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Aims and Scope Ophthalmology and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed (single-blind), and rapid publication journal. The scope of the journal is broad and will consider all scientifically sound research from preclinical, clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the use of ophthalmological therapies, devices, and surgical techniques. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/series, trial protocols and short communications such as commentaries and editorials. Ophthalmology and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals. Rapid Publication The journal’s publication timelines aim for a rapid peer review of 2 weeks. If an article is accepted it will be published 3–4 weeks from acceptance. The rapid timelines are achieved through the combination of a dedicated in-house editorial team, who manage article workflow, and an extensive Editorial and Advisory Board who assist with peer review. This allows the journal to support the rapid dissemination of research, whilst still providing robust peer review. Combined with the journal’s open access model this allows for the rapid, efficient communication of the latest research and reviews, fostering the advancement of ophthalmic therapies. Open Access All articles published by Ophthalmology and Therapy are open access. Personal Service The journal’s dedicated in-house editorial team offer a personal “concierge service” meaning authors will always have an editorial contact able to update them on the status of their manuscript. The editorial team check all manuscripts to ensure that articles conform to the most recent COPE, GPP and ICMJE publishing guidelines. This supports the publication of ethically sound and transparent research. Digital Features and Plain Language Summaries Ophthalmology and Therapy offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by key summary points, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article. The journal also provides the option to include various types of digital features including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations. All additional features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. If you consider that your paper would benefit from the inclusion of a digital feature, please let us know. Our editorial team are able to create high-quality slide decks and infographics in-house, and video abstracts through our partner Research Square, and would be happy to assist in any way we can. For further information about digital features, please contact the journal editor (see ‘Contact the Journal’ for email address), and see the ‘Guidelines for digital features and plain language summaries’ document under ‘Submission guidelines’. For examples of digital features please visit our showcase page https://springerhealthcare.com/expertise/publishing-digital-features/ Publication Fees Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be required to pay the mandatory Rapid Service Fee of €5250/$6000/£4300. The journal will consider fee discounts and waivers for developing countries and this is decided on a case by case basis. Peer Review Process Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the editorial team to ensure they fit within the aims and scope of the journal and are also checked for plagiarism. All suitable submissions are then subject to a comprehensive single-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise and publication history in the subject area. The journal has an extensive pool of editorial and advisory board members who have been selected to assist with peer review based on the afore-mentioned criteria. At least two extensive reviews are required to make the editorial decision, with the exception of some article types such as Commentaries, Editorials, and Letters which are generally reviewed by one member of the Editorial Board. Where reviewer recommendations are conflicted, the editorial board will be contacted for further advice and a presiding decision. Manuscripts are then either accepted, rejected or authors are required to make major or minor revisions (both reviewer comments and editorial comments may need to be addressed). Once a revised manuscript is re-submitted, it is assessed along with the responses to reviewer comments and if it has been adequately revised it will be accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are then copyedited and typeset by the production team before online publication. Appeals against decisions following peer review are considered on a case-by-case basis and should be sent to the journal editor. Preprints We encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration in our journals. Authors should disclose details of preprint posting during the submission process or at any other point during consideration in one of our journals. Once the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website. Please follow the link for further information on preprint sharing: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/journal-author-helpdesk/submission/1302#c16721550 Copyright Ophthalmology and Therapy''s content is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, which allows users to read, copy, distribute, and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited. The author assigns the exclusive right to any commercial use of the article to Springer. For more information about the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, click here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0. Contact For more information about the journal, including pre-submission enquiries, please contact christopher.vautrinot@springer.com.
×
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