Torres HRM, Vázquez RA

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 243-246
PDF size: 224.96 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objetive: To determine the effectiveness of the Nalbufine sp peridural Versus Nalbufine sp. Intravenous. In the control of the post-operative pain of surgery of hip under regional anesthesia. Material and methods: Aclinical trial was carried out controlled in patient with ages over 20-60 years planned for surgery elective of hip, with blockade subarachnoid, to level of L2-L3. With lidocaine hyperbarical 5% 100 mgs; or bupivacaine heavy 15mgs. With epidural catheter for subsequent administration of dose of analgesia. They were divided into two groups I: (n=20), it was administered Nalbufine sp peridural 150 mcg/kg diluted in 80mgs of lidocaine al 1% simple. Group II: (n=20) was administered, Nalbufine sp. 150 mcg/kg Intravenous. Evaluating the pain with visual analog ousscale, blood pressure, cardiac frequency inthestatical analysis descriptive was used chisquared test and t of student for valored the statistic significant (P‹0.05). Results: Blood pressure diastolic in pos-toperative immediate. Group I:79.75± 8.34 mmHg.Group II: 85.25±6. 86mm Hg statistical significant (P‹0.05).All to come out of operating theatre 30% of the patient of the Group I and II they presented mildpain. Pain moderated GroupI:70%, GroupII: 60%. Severe pain: GroupII:10%. Not there was statistical significant. 4hours of applied the medicament in mild pain: Group I: 5% in the Group II: 0%. Moderated pain Group I: 80%, Group II: 60%. Severe pain Group I:15%, Group II40% (P‹0.05). Conclusions: The Nalbufine sp peridural showed better control of the pain.

REFERENCES

1. Delgado C. B.A. Bravo MJ. La transmisión del dolor y el papel de la sustanciaP.Rev.Mex.Anest1994;9:127-137.

2. Gómez MJ. Puon GA. Estudio comparativo entre buprenorfina, fentanylyNalbufinaenel perioperatoriodecirugíadecadera. Anest Mex.1995;2:82-87.

3. WhizarLV. Carrada PS. Vías alternasdeadministracióndeopiodes en el tratamiento del dolor agudo post operatorio. Anest. Mex. 1990;4:226-246.

4. Bravo BP, Enrique CJ. Dolor lumbar fisiopatología, diagnóstico y opcionesdetratamiento.Anest. Mex. 1984; 3: 139-160.

5. Kehlet H. Postoperative pain relief-what is the issue. Anesthesiology.1994;7:375-77.

6. Magnus Sjoberg MD. Per-Ake Karisson. Neuropathology findings after long-term intrathecal infusion of morphine and bupivacaine for pain treatment in cancer patients. Anesthesiology. 1992; 76:173-186.

7. Cousins MJ. Mather LE. Intratecal and epidural administration of opiods.Anesthesiology.1984;61:276-310.

8. Marron PM. Cañas HG. Narcóticos epidurales en anestesia obstetricia.Rev.Mex.Anest. 1993; 16: 31-37.

9. Ramírez GA. Cáliz. PE. Meneses SE. Burkle BJ. Experiencia con buprenorfina epidural para control del dolor después de cirugía abdominalmayor.Rev,Mex.Anest.1994;17:18-21.

10. Negre MD.JP.Gueneron,MD.Preoperativeanalgesiawithepidural morphine.AnesthAnalg. 1994; 79: 298-302.

11. Barash PaulG. M.D.Anestesia clinica vol. 2. 3er edición. Editorial McGraw-Hill interamericana 1997; 564-601.

12. Bucklin BA, Chesnut. Intrathecal opioids versus epidural local anesthetics for labor analgesia:Ameta-analysis. Reg.Anesth. Pain Med.2002;27:23-30.

13. Chrubasik J, Magora F. Relative epidural analgesic potencies of opiates in treatment of postoperative pain. Anesth. Analg. 1990; 70: 60.

14. Ramírez GuerreroA. DolorAgudo postoperatorio, su frecuencia ymanejo.Rev.Mex.Anest.1992;15:1417.