Vojnosanitetski pregled · 2012
[Assessment of ropivacaine postoperative analgesic effect after periapical maxillary incisors surgery].
Сравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Tijanić Milos, Burić Nikola, Jovanović Goran, Stojanović Simona, Spasić Milan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: Ropivacaine is a relatively new long-acting local anesthetic. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative analgesic effect of topical anesthetics ropivacaine 0.75% and lidocaine 2% with adrenaline in the postoperative treatment of periapical lesions in the maxilla.
METHODS: The study was conducted on 60 subjects, divided into two groups. The study-group received 0.75% ropivacaine without a vasoconstrictor, while the control group was treated with 2% lidocaine with adrenaline (1 : 80.000). Block anesthesia for n. infraorbitalis was used and local anesthetics were applied also on the palatine side for the end branches of n. nasopalatinus. The following parameters were observed: time elapsed from the application of an anesthetic until the first occurrence of pain after the surgery and first intake of an analgesic, the intensity of initial pain, pain intensity 6 h after the application of anesthetics and the total number of analgesics taken within 24 h after the completion of surgery.
RESULTS: The pain appeared statistically significantly earlier in the patients who had been given lidocaine with adrenaline (p < 0.001), while statistically significantly higher mean values of initial postoperative pain (p < 0.05) and pain intensity 6 h after the intervention (p < 0.01) were also registered in the same group of patients. In the period of 24 h upon the intervention, the study-group patients were taking less analgesics as compared to the control-group subjects (46.6% vs 73.3%), who were given analgesics earlier, although no statistically significant differences were observed related to the number of analgesic doses taken.
CONCLUSION: The results of our study indicate a better postoperative analgesic effect of ropivacaine as compared to lidocaine with adrenaline.
METHODS: The study was conducted on 60 subjects, divided into two groups. The study-group received 0.75% ropivacaine without a vasoconstrictor, while the control group was treated with 2% lidocaine with adrenaline (1 : 80.000). Block anesthesia for n. infraorbitalis was used and local anesthetics were applied also on the palatine side for the end branches of n. nasopalatinus. The following parameters were observed: time elapsed from the application of an anesthetic until the first occurrence of pain after the surgery and first intake of an analgesic, the intensity of initial pain, pain intensity 6 h after the application of anesthetics and the total number of analgesics taken within 24 h after the completion of surgery.
RESULTS: The pain appeared statistically significantly earlier in the patients who had been given lidocaine with adrenaline (p < 0.001), while statistically significantly higher mean values of initial postoperative pain (p < 0.05) and pain intensity 6 h after the intervention (p < 0.01) were also registered in the same group of patients. In the period of 24 h upon the intervention, the study-group patients were taking less analgesics as compared to the control-group subjects (46.6% vs 73.3%), who were given analgesics earlier, although no statistically significant differences were observed related to the number of analgesic doses taken.
CONCLUSION: The results of our study indicate a better postoperative analgesic effect of ropivacaine as compared to lidocaine with adrenaline.