The Journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2014
Utility of bispectral index monitoring during deep sedation in pediatric dental patients.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Dag C, Bezgin T, Özalp N, Gölcüklü Aydın G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the total medicament doses and recovery profiles of patients for whom Bispectral Analysis (BIS) monitor was used to monitor sedation.
STUDY DESIGN: Thirty-four uncooperative paediatric patients aged 3-6 years who attended to the Department of Pediatric Dentistry for dental treatment were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups of 17 patients each. Physiological variables including oxygen saturation, blood pressure and heart rate were recorded. In one group (BIS-monitored group), drugs were administered to maintain patients' BIS values between 60-70, while the other group (Non-BIS-monitored Group) was not monitored using BIS. Data was evaluated by Chi-square, Mann Whitney U, Independent Samples t, Paired Samples t and Wilcoxon signed tests, with a p-value of <0.05 considered to be statistically significant.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in total anesthetic doses, incidence of adverse events or recovery profiles of patients between non- BIS-monitored and BIS-monitored groups (p ≥ 0.05). However, distinct correlation was determined among mean values of UMSS and BIS values (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: BIS represents no advantage over the current commonly accepted methods for monitoring sedation depth in children.
STUDY DESIGN: Thirty-four uncooperative paediatric patients aged 3-6 years who attended to the Department of Pediatric Dentistry for dental treatment were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups of 17 patients each. Physiological variables including oxygen saturation, blood pressure and heart rate were recorded. In one group (BIS-monitored group), drugs were administered to maintain patients' BIS values between 60-70, while the other group (Non-BIS-monitored Group) was not monitored using BIS. Data was evaluated by Chi-square, Mann Whitney U, Independent Samples t, Paired Samples t and Wilcoxon signed tests, with a p-value of <0.05 considered to be statistically significant.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in total anesthetic doses, incidence of adverse events or recovery profiles of patients between non- BIS-monitored and BIS-monitored groups (p ≥ 0.05). However, distinct correlation was determined among mean values of UMSS and BIS values (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: BIS represents no advantage over the current commonly accepted methods for monitoring sedation depth in children.