4.4 Article

Parecoxib vs. lornoxicam in the treatment of postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized placebo-controlled trial

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 154-158

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1017/S0265021506001293

关键词

surgery, abdominal; lornoxicam; parecoxib; pain acute and postoperative; cholecystectomy laparoscopic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objective: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are considered as an effective treatment of postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. COX-2 inhibitors are newer drugs having less adverse effects. Data supporting their efficacy postoperatively in comparison to older non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are scarce. Our study is a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial comparing the efficacy of lornoxicam vs. parecoxib for the management of pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Materials and methods: We enrolled 76 patients, ASA I and 11, scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The patients were randomized to receive before induction parecoxib 40 mg i.v., lornoxicam 8 mg i.v. or placebo. Pain at rest and on movement was assessed using a visual analogue scale at 0, 6, 12 h postoperatively. Total meperidine consumption and adverse effects were also recorded. Results: At 12 h, visual analogue scale scores at rest and on movement were significantly lower with parecoxib and lornoxicam compared with control (P = 0.047). The percentage of patients needing meperidine and the average dose of meperidine administered was significantly lower with parecoxib and lornoxicam compared with control (P < 0.001 and P = 0.018). There was no difference between parecoxib and lornoxicam. One patient receiving lornoxicam vomited. Conclusions: Parecoxib 40 mg i.v. and lornoxicam 8 mg IN. were equianalgesic and both were more efficacious than placebo for the management of pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

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

4.4
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