4.5 Article

Topical sucralfate in post-adenotonsillectomy analgesia in children: A double-blind randomized clinical trial

期刊

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
卷 141, 期 3, 页码 322-328

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.otohns.2009.05.032

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: Tonsillectomy, with or without adenoidectomy, is one of the most common surgical procedures in pediatric otolaryngology. Despite its relative simplicity, pain is the main cause of morbidity in the postoperative period. We determined the effect of topical sucralfate on reduction of oropharyngeal pain in children submitted to adenotonsillectomy. Secondary outcomes were otalgia, analgesic use, type of diet, secondary bleeding, vomiting, fever, and weight loss. STUDY DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Tertiary hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighty-two children of both sexes between four and 12 years old submitted to adenotonsillectomy were evaluated. They were allocated to receive topical sucralfate or placebo in intraoperative and postoperative periods four times a day for five days. Pain was measured through faces pain scale. RESULTS: Reduction in oropharyngeal pain was significant with use of sucralfate during five days of evaluation (mean, 95% confidence interval, and P value); day 1: 2.05, 1.53-2.58, P = 0.000; day 2: 2.1, 1.51-2.70, P = 0.001; day 3: 1.44, 0.88-1.99, P = 0.003; day 4: 1.13, 0.58-1.55, P = 0.027; day 5: 0.67, 0.26-1.04, P = 0.021). There was no difference in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: We found beneficial effect of use of sucralfate in reduction of oropharyngeal pain in the postoperative period of adenotonsillectomy. However, topical sucralfate does not have a potent effect to the point of being utilized as a single analgesic treatment. Because it is simple, safe, tolerated, and low-cost, it is an important tool as adjuvant treatment of post-tonsillectomy pain. (C) 2009 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据