利多卡因浸润缓解小儿肿瘤骨髓抽吸疼痛的效果评价

P. Marec-Berard, A. Montella, C. Schmitt, Séverine Bobillier-Chaumont, S. Gorde‐Grosjean, C. Berhoune
{"title":"利多卡因浸润缓解小儿肿瘤骨髓抽吸疼痛的效果评价","authors":"P. Marec-Berard, A. Montella, C. Schmitt, Séverine Bobillier-Chaumont, S. Gorde‐Grosjean, C. Berhoune","doi":"10.12715/apr.2015.2.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Bone marrow aspiration (BMA) is a painful procedure often requested in paediatric haematology and oncology. The role of local anaesthesia during BMA is matter of debate. This study assessed pain induced by BMA in children who received standard analgesic premedication with or without additional subcutaneous administration of local anaesthesia. Methods: This non-randomised prospective study included 100 patients (age range 5-21 years) who underwent BMA for the diagnosis or treatment of malignancy in a paediatric oncology unit between March 2009 and October 2010. Patients received standard premedication with topical anaesthesia, inhaled nitrous oxide, anxiolytics and analgesics, which was combined or not with administration of local anaesthesia (lidocaine). The children, nurses and doctors all graded procedural pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Data were statistically analysed, with each procedure serving as a statistical unit. Results: For 100 BMA procedures performed during the study period, the mean pain rating by children was 2.2, with 38 subjects reporting no pain. Use of lidocaine (19%) induced a mean pain score of 1.6, with 11 patients (57.9%) reporting no pain. Without lidocaine, the mean score was 2.3, and only 27 children (33.3%) reported no pain. Patients undergoing BMA for the first time more frequently graded pain as “0” (p=0.008). Ratings by patients and caregivers correlated poorly; 29.6% of nurses and 34.7% of doctors underestimated procedural pain. Conclusions: Our findings do not clearly demonstrate that addition of local anaesthetic to standard premedication reduces BMA-induced pain. Nevertheless, we provide valuable information on VAS scoring during BMA with standard premedication","PeriodicalId":72104,"journal":{"name":"Advances in pediatric research","volume":"44 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of lidocaine infiltration efficiency for pain relief during bone marrow aspiration in children with cancer\",\"authors\":\"P. Marec-Berard, A. Montella, C. Schmitt, Séverine Bobillier-Chaumont, S. Gorde‐Grosjean, C. Berhoune\",\"doi\":\"10.12715/apr.2015.2.7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Bone marrow aspiration (BMA) is a painful procedure often requested in paediatric haematology and oncology. The role of local anaesthesia during BMA is matter of debate. This study assessed pain induced by BMA in children who received standard analgesic premedication with or without additional subcutaneous administration of local anaesthesia. Methods: This non-randomised prospective study included 100 patients (age range 5-21 years) who underwent BMA for the diagnosis or treatment of malignancy in a paediatric oncology unit between March 2009 and October 2010. Patients received standard premedication with topical anaesthesia, inhaled nitrous oxide, anxiolytics and analgesics, which was combined or not with administration of local anaesthesia (lidocaine). The children, nurses and doctors all graded procedural pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Data were statistically analysed, with each procedure serving as a statistical unit. Results: For 100 BMA procedures performed during the study period, the mean pain rating by children was 2.2, with 38 subjects reporting no pain. Use of lidocaine (19%) induced a mean pain score of 1.6, with 11 patients (57.9%) reporting no pain. Without lidocaine, the mean score was 2.3, and only 27 children (33.3%) reported no pain. Patients undergoing BMA for the first time more frequently graded pain as “0” (p=0.008). Ratings by patients and caregivers correlated poorly; 29.6% of nurses and 34.7% of doctors underestimated procedural pain. Conclusions: Our findings do not clearly demonstrate that addition of local anaesthetic to standard premedication reduces BMA-induced pain. Nevertheless, we provide valuable information on VAS scoring during BMA with standard premedication\",\"PeriodicalId\":72104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in pediatric research\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in pediatric research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12715/apr.2015.2.7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in pediatric research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12715/apr.2015.2.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:骨髓穿刺(BMA)是儿科血液学和肿瘤学中经常要求的一种痛苦的手术。局部麻醉在BMA中的作用是一个有争议的问题。本研究评估了在接受标准镇痛药物前加或不加局部皮下麻醉的儿童中BMA引起的疼痛。方法:这项非随机前瞻性研究纳入了100例患者(年龄范围5-21岁),这些患者在2009年3月至2010年10月期间在儿科肿瘤科接受了BMA诊断或治疗恶性肿瘤。患者接受标准的预用药,包括表面麻醉、吸入氧化亚氮、抗焦虑药和镇痛药,并联合或不联合局部麻醉(利多卡因)。患儿、护士和医生均采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)对手术疼痛进行评分。数据进行统计分析,每个程序作为一个统计单位。结果:在研究期间进行的100例BMA手术中,儿童的平均疼痛评分为2.2,38名受试者报告无疼痛。使用利多卡因(19%)导致平均疼痛评分为1.6分,11例患者(57.9%)报告无疼痛。未使用利多卡因时,平均评分为2.3分,只有27名儿童(33.3%)报告无疼痛。首次接受BMA的患者更频繁地将疼痛分级为“0”(p=0.008)。患者和护理人员的评分相关性很差;29.6%的护士和34.7%的医生低估了手术疼痛。结论:我们的研究结果并不能清楚地证明在标准用药前添加局部麻醉可以减少bma引起的疼痛。然而,我们提供了有价值的信息,VAS评分在BMA与标准前用药
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of lidocaine infiltration efficiency for pain relief during bone marrow aspiration in children with cancer
Background: Bone marrow aspiration (BMA) is a painful procedure often requested in paediatric haematology and oncology. The role of local anaesthesia during BMA is matter of debate. This study assessed pain induced by BMA in children who received standard analgesic premedication with or without additional subcutaneous administration of local anaesthesia. Methods: This non-randomised prospective study included 100 patients (age range 5-21 years) who underwent BMA for the diagnosis or treatment of malignancy in a paediatric oncology unit between March 2009 and October 2010. Patients received standard premedication with topical anaesthesia, inhaled nitrous oxide, anxiolytics and analgesics, which was combined or not with administration of local anaesthesia (lidocaine). The children, nurses and doctors all graded procedural pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Data were statistically analysed, with each procedure serving as a statistical unit. Results: For 100 BMA procedures performed during the study period, the mean pain rating by children was 2.2, with 38 subjects reporting no pain. Use of lidocaine (19%) induced a mean pain score of 1.6, with 11 patients (57.9%) reporting no pain. Without lidocaine, the mean score was 2.3, and only 27 children (33.3%) reported no pain. Patients undergoing BMA for the first time more frequently graded pain as “0” (p=0.008). Ratings by patients and caregivers correlated poorly; 29.6% of nurses and 34.7% of doctors underestimated procedural pain. Conclusions: Our findings do not clearly demonstrate that addition of local anaesthetic to standard premedication reduces BMA-induced pain. Nevertheless, we provide valuable information on VAS scoring during BMA with standard premedication
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信