3.8 Article

Preincisional intravenous low-dose ketamine and local infiltration with ropivacaine reduces postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s004640090124

关键词

preemptive pain therapy; ketamine; ropivacaine; laparoscopic cholecystectomy; cholecystectomy; pain control

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The preincisional use of ketamine combined with local tissue infiltration with Ropivacaine may reduce noxious input during surgery. The goal of this study was to examine whether this combination improves postoperative pain control after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: A total of 55 patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups. Group 1 received placebos preincisional. Group 2 received preincisional saline IV and local infiltration with 20 ml ropivacaine (10 mg/ml). Group 3 received preincisional ketamine 1 mg/kg IV and local infiltration with 20 ml ropivacaine (10 mg/ml). Postoperative pain was rated at 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively by visual analogue scale scores (VAS). Cumulative analgesic consumption and time until first analgesic medication request were recorded. Results: Group 3 experienced significantly (p < 0.05) less pain than group 2 at 6 h and 12 h postoperatively. Groups 2 and 3 did not differ significantly by VAS at 0 h, 3 h, 24 h, and 48 h. Group 1 had significantly higher VAS scores than groups 2 and 3 at 0 h, 3 h, 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h postoperatively. The consumption of analgesics was significantly higher in group 1 than in groups 2 and 3. Although the consumption of analgesics was higher in group 3 than in group 2, this difference did not reach statistical significance. The time to first request for analgesics was significantly longer in groups 2 and 3 than in group 1, with no statistical difference between groups 2 and 3. Conclusion: Preincisional treatment with low-dose IV ketamine and local infiltration with ropivacaine 1% reduces postoperative 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

3.8
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