The Canadian journal of urology · 2013
Prophylactic belladonna suppositories on anesthetic recovery after robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Scavonetto Federica, Lamborn David R, McCaffrey Joan M, Schroeder Darrell R, Gettman Mattew T, Sprung Juraj, Weingarten Toby N
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Two prospective trials have demonstrated prophylactic antimuscarinics following prostatectomy reduce pain from bladder spasms. Our practice adopted the routine administration of prophylactic belladonna and opium (B&O) suppositories to patients undergoing robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). The aim of this study is to determine if this change in clinical practice was associated with improvement of postoperative outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The medical records of 202 patients that underwent RALP surgery who were or were not administered prophylactic B&O suppositories in the immediate postoperative period were abstracted for duration of anesthesia recovery, pain and analgesic use.
RESULTS: Patient and surgical characteristics between groups were similar except B&O group were slightly older (p = 0.04) and administered less opioid analgesics (p = 0.05). There was no difference between groups in the duration of phase I recovery from anesthesia (p = 0.96). Multivariable adjustments for age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and surgical duration were made, and again it was found that suppository administration had no association with phase I recovery times (p = 0.94). The use of antimuscarinic medication for bladder spams in the B&O group was less during phase I recovery (p < 0.01), but was similar during the first 24 hours (p = 0.66). Postoperative sedation, opioid analgesic requirements and pain scales were similar during phase I recovery and the first 24 postoperative hours. Hospital length of stay was similar.
DISCUSSION: The introduction of prophylactic B&O suppositories at the immediate conclusion of RALP surgery was not associated with improvements of the postoperative course.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The medical records of 202 patients that underwent RALP surgery who were or were not administered prophylactic B&O suppositories in the immediate postoperative period were abstracted for duration of anesthesia recovery, pain and analgesic use.
RESULTS: Patient and surgical characteristics between groups were similar except B&O group were slightly older (p = 0.04) and administered less opioid analgesics (p = 0.05). There was no difference between groups in the duration of phase I recovery from anesthesia (p = 0.96). Multivariable adjustments for age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and surgical duration were made, and again it was found that suppository administration had no association with phase I recovery times (p = 0.94). The use of antimuscarinic medication for bladder spams in the B&O group was less during phase I recovery (p < 0.01), but was similar during the first 24 hours (p = 0.66). Postoperative sedation, opioid analgesic requirements and pain scales were similar during phase I recovery and the first 24 postoperative hours. Hospital length of stay was similar.
DISCUSSION: The introduction of prophylactic B&O suppositories at the immediate conclusion of RALP surgery was not associated with improvements of the postoperative course.