4.5 Article

Intradermal sterile water injection versus diclofenac sodium in acute renal colic pain: A randomized controlled trial

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 44, 期 -, 页码 395-400

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.04.079

关键词

Renal colic; Sterile water injection; Diclofenac

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that ISWI and diclofenac were equally effective in relieving the pain of acute renal colic, and both were more effective compared to placebo.
Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of intracutaneous sterile water injection (ISWI) to relieve the pain of acute renal colic compared with diclofenac and placebo. Methods: The study included 150 patients presented to the Emergency Department with renal colic randomized into 3 groups: control group received intracutaneous injections of 0.5 cm3 isotonic saline in the flank, group A received intracutaneous injections of 0.5 cm3 ISWI in the flank, and group B received an intramuscular injection of 75 mg Diclofenac in the gluteal region. The severity of the pain was assessed by a visual analogue scale system at baseline and 30, 45 min, and 60 min after injections. Subjects with inadequate pain relief at 1 h received rescue analgesia. Results: The mean baseline pain score was 9.6 +/- 0.61 in the ISWI group, 9.72 +/- 0.64 in the diclofenac group and 9.26 +/- 0.89 in the control group. The mean pain score at 30 min of the control group was reduced to 6.9 +/- 1.56. This mean at 30 min after ISWI and diclofenac injections were reduced to 1.98 +/- 1.41 and 1.88 +/- 1.19 respectively. The mean of pain sore of the ISWI and diclofenac group at 45 and 60 min was constant. Rescue analgesics at 1 h were required by 47 patients receiving the saline injection and by 4 patients and by 7 patients receiving ISWI and diclofenac injection respectively. Conclusions: ISWI and diclofenac were equally effective for the pain relief of acute renal colic. (c) 2020 Elsevier Inc. 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