肌肉注射哌替啶和肌肉注射吗啡对加勒比海地区骨科人群镇痛效果的比较

Michele A Ragoonath, Dale Ventour
{"title":"肌肉注射哌替啶和肌肉注射吗啡对加勒比海地区骨科人群镇痛效果的比较","authors":"Michele A Ragoonath, Dale Ventour","doi":"10.36648/1791-809X.15.2.806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Comparison of the analgesic effect of Intramuscular Pethidine and Intramuscular Morphine on an Orthopedic Population. Settings and Design: 1) Single Blinded Randomized Controlled study: Patients were divided into Morphine group or Pethidine group 2) Patient Satisfaction survey was administered to patients at the end of stay. Material and Methods: 1) Visual Analogue Scores (VAS) were taken at eight hourly intervals for three consecutive days or until the day of discharge. Incidence of opioid related complications was noted 2) A patient satisfaction survey was administered at the end of stay. Statistical Analysis: Average VAS during movement on day one during the 8am to 4pm period was calculated for both the morphine group and pethidine group. The percentage decrease in VAS was calculated for morphine vs. pethidine group on movement on Day 1. Pearson’s correlation was used to assess the relationship between opioid, side effects and overall patient satisfaction. T-test was used to evaluate the relationship between morphine, pethidine and twenty-four-hour pain relief.A one-way ANOVA test was used to evaluate the statistical significance between the morphine and the pethidine group and patient satisfaction. Results: The morphine group as compared with the pethidine group experienced an 18.5% decrease in Visual Analogue Score for pain on movement on day 1 (8 am-4 pm period). The morphine group was associated more drowsiness and prolonged time to first bowel action compared to the pethidine group. Only 1.4% (1) of patients experienced desaturation during the study which occurred in the morphine group. Overall, opioids were associated with minimal side effects and were generally safe to use. Patients who underwent regional anaesthesia used more morphine equivalents compared to those undergoing general anaesthesia. The morphine group was associated with overall increased patient satisfaction when compared to the Pethidine group. Conclusion: The study demonstrated a notable 18.5% decrease in VAS on movement with the morphine group as compared to pethidine group. Statistical significance was placed at 15%. Opioids were found to have a limited adverse side effect profile, with drowsiness and time to first bowel action being the most predominant. Only one patient representing 1.4% of the population had an episode of desaturation (Sp02 < 90%). Due to the minimal side effect profile opioids should be considered safe to use.","PeriodicalId":12868,"journal":{"name":"Health science journal","volume":"142 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Analgesic Effectof Intramuscular Pethidine andIntramuscular Morphine on anOrthopedic Population in a CaribbeanTerritory\",\"authors\":\"Michele A Ragoonath, Dale Ventour\",\"doi\":\"10.36648/1791-809X.15.2.806\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Comparison of the analgesic effect of Intramuscular Pethidine and Intramuscular Morphine on an Orthopedic Population. Settings and Design: 1) Single Blinded Randomized Controlled study: Patients were divided into Morphine group or Pethidine group 2) Patient Satisfaction survey was administered to patients at the end of stay. Material and Methods: 1) Visual Analogue Scores (VAS) were taken at eight hourly intervals for three consecutive days or until the day of discharge. Incidence of opioid related complications was noted 2) A patient satisfaction survey was administered at the end of stay. Statistical Analysis: Average VAS during movement on day one during the 8am to 4pm period was calculated for both the morphine group and pethidine group. The percentage decrease in VAS was calculated for morphine vs. pethidine group on movement on Day 1. Pearson’s correlation was used to assess the relationship between opioid, side effects and overall patient satisfaction. T-test was used to evaluate the relationship between morphine, pethidine and twenty-four-hour pain relief.A one-way ANOVA test was used to evaluate the statistical significance between the morphine and the pethidine group and patient satisfaction. Results: The morphine group as compared with the pethidine group experienced an 18.5% decrease in Visual Analogue Score for pain on movement on day 1 (8 am-4 pm period). The morphine group was associated more drowsiness and prolonged time to first bowel action compared to the pethidine group. Only 1.4% (1) of patients experienced desaturation during the study which occurred in the morphine group. Overall, opioids were associated with minimal side effects and were generally safe to use. Patients who underwent regional anaesthesia used more morphine equivalents compared to those undergoing general anaesthesia. The morphine group was associated with overall increased patient satisfaction when compared to the Pethidine group. Conclusion: The study demonstrated a notable 18.5% decrease in VAS on movement with the morphine group as compared to pethidine group. Statistical significance was placed at 15%. Opioids were found to have a limited adverse side effect profile, with drowsiness and time to first bowel action being the most predominant. Only one patient representing 1.4% of the population had an episode of desaturation (Sp02 < 90%). Due to the minimal side effect profile opioids should be considered safe to use.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12868,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health science journal\",\"volume\":\"142 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health science journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36648/1791-809X.15.2.806\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health science journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36648/1791-809X.15.2.806","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前言:肌注哌替啶与肌注吗啡对骨科人群镇痛效果的比较。设置与设计:1)单盲随机对照研究:将患者分为吗啡组和哌啶组;2)在患者出院时进行患者满意度调查。材料与方法:1)连续3天,每隔8小时进行视觉模拟评分(VAS),直至出院。记录阿片类药物相关并发症的发生率2)住院结束时进行患者满意度调查。统计分析:吗啡组和哌替啶组分别计算第一天上午8点至下午4点运动时VAS的平均值。计算吗啡组与哌替啶组在第1天运动时VAS下降百分比。使用Pearson相关性来评估阿片类药物、副作用和总体患者满意度之间的关系。采用t检验评价吗啡、哌替啶与24小时疼痛缓解的关系。采用单因素方差分析比较吗啡组和哌替啶组与患者满意度的差异有统计学意义。结果:与哌替啶组相比,吗啡组第1天(上午8时至下午4时)运动疼痛视觉模拟评分降低18.5%。与哌啶组相比,吗啡组更嗜睡,第一次排便时间更长。只有1.4%(1)的患者在研究期间发生了吗啡组的去饱和。总的来说,阿片类药物的副作用很小,而且通常是安全的。与接受全身麻醉的患者相比,接受区域麻醉的患者使用了更多的吗啡当量。与哌替啶组相比,吗啡组总体上增加了患者的满意度。结论:与哌啶组相比,吗啡组运动VAS评分明显降低18.5%。统计学显著性为15%。阿片类药物被发现具有有限的不良副作用,嗜睡和首次排便时间是最主要的。仅有1例患者(占总人数的1.4%)发生过血饱和度过低(Sp02 < 90%)。由于副作用最小,阿片类药物应该被认为是安全的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the Analgesic Effectof Intramuscular Pethidine andIntramuscular Morphine on anOrthopedic Population in a CaribbeanTerritory
Introduction: Comparison of the analgesic effect of Intramuscular Pethidine and Intramuscular Morphine on an Orthopedic Population. Settings and Design: 1) Single Blinded Randomized Controlled study: Patients were divided into Morphine group or Pethidine group 2) Patient Satisfaction survey was administered to patients at the end of stay. Material and Methods: 1) Visual Analogue Scores (VAS) were taken at eight hourly intervals for three consecutive days or until the day of discharge. Incidence of opioid related complications was noted 2) A patient satisfaction survey was administered at the end of stay. Statistical Analysis: Average VAS during movement on day one during the 8am to 4pm period was calculated for both the morphine group and pethidine group. The percentage decrease in VAS was calculated for morphine vs. pethidine group on movement on Day 1. Pearson’s correlation was used to assess the relationship between opioid, side effects and overall patient satisfaction. T-test was used to evaluate the relationship between morphine, pethidine and twenty-four-hour pain relief.A one-way ANOVA test was used to evaluate the statistical significance between the morphine and the pethidine group and patient satisfaction. Results: The morphine group as compared with the pethidine group experienced an 18.5% decrease in Visual Analogue Score for pain on movement on day 1 (8 am-4 pm period). The morphine group was associated more drowsiness and prolonged time to first bowel action compared to the pethidine group. Only 1.4% (1) of patients experienced desaturation during the study which occurred in the morphine group. Overall, opioids were associated with minimal side effects and were generally safe to use. Patients who underwent regional anaesthesia used more morphine equivalents compared to those undergoing general anaesthesia. The morphine group was associated with overall increased patient satisfaction when compared to the Pethidine group. Conclusion: The study demonstrated a notable 18.5% decrease in VAS on movement with the morphine group as compared to pethidine group. Statistical significance was placed at 15%. Opioids were found to have a limited adverse side effect profile, with drowsiness and time to first bowel action being the most predominant. Only one patient representing 1.4% of the population had an episode of desaturation (Sp02 < 90%). Due to the minimal side effect profile opioids should be considered safe to use.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信