4.5 Article

A Comparison of Intrathecal and Intravenous Morphine for Analgesia After Hepatectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 44, 期 7, 页码 2340-2349

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-020-05437-x

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Effective analgesia is essential for patient recovery after liver resection. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the addition of preoperative intrathecal morphine to multimodal intravenous analgesia in patients undergoing liver resection. Methods In this single-blind randomized controlled trial, patients undergoing liver resection were randomly assigned to the patient-controlled analgesia with (ITM-IV) or without (IV) preoperative intrathecal morphine groups. All patients received acetaminophen and dexketoprofen. The primary outcome was pain severity at rest over three postoperative days, assessed using the numerical rating scale (NRS). Results The study included 36 patients (18 in each group). The mean maximum daily NRS scores over the first three postoperative days in the ITM-IV and IV groups were 1.3, 1.1, and 0.3 and 1.6, 1.1, and 0.7, respectively (p = 0.580). No differences were observed in pain severity while coughing, with corresponding scores of 2.8, 2.1, and 1.1, respectively, in the ITM-IV group and 2.3, 2.2, and 1.5, respectively, in the IV group (p = 0.963). Proportions of patients reporting clinically significant pain at rest and while coughing were 11.1% and 44.4%, respectively, in the ITM-IV group, and 16.7% and 44.4%, respectively, in the IV group (both p > 0.999). Cumulative morphine doses in the ITM-IV and IV groups were 26 mg and 17 mg, respectively (p = 0.257). Both groups also showed similar time to mobilization (p = 0.791) and solid food intake (p = 0.743), sedation grade (p = 0.584), and morbidity (p = 0.402). Conclusions Preoperative intrathecal morphine administration provides no benefits to multimodal analgesia in patients undergoing liver resection.

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