4.1 Review

Monitoring of analgesia level during general anesthesia in children

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 367-373

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000001141

关键词

analgesia; children; monitoring; nociception

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The monitoring of intraoperative nociception has progressed significantly in adult anesthesia, but there is still a lack of data in pediatric anesthesia. Several potential nociception monitors for children have been identified, but their clinical benefits need further investigation.
Purpose of review Monitoring of intraoperative nociception has made substantial progress in adult anesthesia during the last 10 years. Several monitors have been validated and their use has been associated with intraoperative or postoperative benefits in the adult population. In pediatric anesthesia, less data are available. However, several recent publications have assessed the performance of nociception monitors in children, and investigated their potential benefits in this context. This review will describe the main validated intraoperative nociception monitors, summarize adult findings and describe the available pediatric data. Recent findings Six intraoperative nociception indices were included in this review. Among them, four have shown promising results in children: Surgical Pleth Index (GE-Healthcare, Helsinki, Finland), Analgesia-Nociception Index (Mdoloris Medical Systems, Loos, France), Newborn-Infant Parasympathetic Evaluation (Mdoloris Medical Systems), and Pupillometry (IDMED, Marseille, France). The relevance of Skin Conductance (MedStorm innovations, AS, Oslo, Norway) under general anesthesia could not be established. Finally, the Nociception Level (Medasense, Ramat Gan, Israel) still requires to be investigated in children. To date, four monitors may provide a relevant assessment of intraoperative nociception in children. However, the potential clinical benefits associated with their use to guide analgesia remain to be demonstrated.

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

4.1
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