Background:Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is suitable for lower abdominal surgeries. Blind TAP block has many complications and uncertainty of its effects. Use of ultrasonography increases the safety and efficacy. This study was conducted to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of ultrasound (USG)-guided TAP block for retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (RDN).Methods:In a prospective randomized double-blind study, 60 patients undergoing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy were randomly divided into two groups by closed envelope method. At the end of surgery, USG-guided TAP block was given to the patients of both the groups. Study group (group S) received inj. Bupivacaine (0.375%), whereas control group (group C) received normal saline. Inj. Tramadol (1 mg/kg) was given as rescue analgesic at visual analog scale (VAS) more than 3 in any group at rest or on movement. The analgesic efficacy was judged by VAS both at rest and on movement, time tofirst dose of rescue analgesic, cumulative dose of tramadol, sedation score, and nausea score, which were also noted at 30 min, 2, 4, 6, 12, 18, and 24 h postoperatively. Total tramadol consumption at 24 h was also assessed.Results:Patients in group S had significantly lower VAS score, longer time tofirst dose of rescue analgesic (547.13±266.96 min vs. 49.17±24.95 min) and lower tramadol consumption (103.8±32.18 mg vs. 235.8±47.5 mg) in 24 h.Conclusion:The USG-guided TAP block is easy to perform and effective as a postoperative analgesic regimen in RDN, with opioids-sparing effect and without any complications.
Background and Aims:Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is suitable for operations where parietal pain is a major cause of pain. Renal transplant recipients are ideally suited to gain maximum benefit from TAP block as the incision classically involves the lower abdomen. This study was conducted to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of continuous TAP block in transplant recipients.Material and Methods:In a prospective double-blind study, 40 chronic renal failure patients undergoing open renal transplant were randomly divided into two groups. At the end of surgery during closure, a multiorifice epidural catheter was placed in TAP plane. Study group (Group S) received Inj bupivacaine bolus 1 mg/kg (0.25%) followed by infusion 0.25 mg/kg (0.125%) through the catheter, whereas control group (Group C) received normal saline through the catheter. Inj pentazocine (0.3 mg/kg) was given as rescue analgesic at visual analogue score (VAS) > 3 in any group at rest or on movement. The analgesic efficacy was judged by VAS, time of first rescue analgesic, and total analgesic consumption in 24 h.Results:Patients in Group S had significant lower VAS scores, longer time to first rescue analgesic (270 ± 347.96 vs. 42.85 ± 32.27 min) and lower pentazocine consumption (9.75 ± 13.95 vs. 56.42 ± 12.46 mg) in 24 h. There was significant sedation in Group C.Conclusion:The TAP catheter technique for postoperative pain control after renal transplant has proved to be effective in relieving the postoperative pain after renal transplant with less pentazocine requirement and less sedation.
Background:Percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a routine endourologic procedure in patients with renal stones. Although it is less painful than open surgery, good postoperative analgesia is required to alleviate pain around nephrostomy tube.Materials and Methods:Sixty ASA grade I patients, 18 to 60 years of age, of either sex were randomized to receive 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine (group S) or 20 ml of normal saline (group C) through 23-gauge spinal needle along the nephrostomy tube under fluroscopic guidance at the end of the surgery. Postoperative pain score was assessed by visual and dynamic visual analog scores. When the scores were ≥4, rescue analgesia was given in the form of tramadol 1 mg/kg i.v. upto maximum 400 mg in 24 hours. Time to first demand analgesia and total dose of tramadol in first 24 hours was noted.Results:Pain scores at rest and during coughing as well as rescue analgesic requirements for first 24 hours were significantly less in the bupivacaine group than those of the control group (P < 0.05). The first request for demand analgesia was around 9 hours in group S, while in group C it was around 2.6 hours (P < 0.05). Total requirement of tramadol in group S was 119.3 mg and in C group it was 276.8 mg (P < 0.05).Conclusion:Peritubal infiltration of 0.25% bupivacaine is efficient in alleviating postoperative pain after PCNL.
Background:As an anesthetic adjuvant dexmedetomidine has been shown to provide good perioperative hemodynamic stability with minimum alveolar concentration sparing effect on inhalational anesthetic agents during laparoscopic surgeries performed under general anesthesia.Aim:The study was planned to investigate the effects of dexmedetomidine on attenuation of hemodynamic changes and requirements of intra-operative analgesic and inhalational anesthetic during laparoscopic surgeries and its postoperative side effects.Materials and Methods:A total of 70 patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic surgeries were randomized to receive bolus infusion of dexmedetomidine (group D) or saline (group S) 1 mcg/kg/h, followed by continuous infusion of the same, at the rate of 0.5 mcg/kg/h. Anesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide in oxygen, muscle relaxant and isoflurane. Supplementation with end-tidal isoflurane was considered when heart rate (HR) and mean arterial blood pressure (BP) exceeded 20% of the baseline value. Hemodynamics, end-tidal isoflurane concentration and adverse events were recorded.Results:Intra-operative mean HR and mean BP in group D were lower than group S (P < 0.05) throughout the laparoscopy surgery. Requirement of intra-operative fentanyl, end-tidal isoflurane and postoperative tramadol were significantly more in group S compared to group D (P < 0.05) Statistically significant nausea and vomiting were noted in group S. Undue sedation and other adverse effects are comparable in both the groups.Conclusion:Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant in general anesthesia for laparoscopic surgeries provided a stable hemodynamic profile in the perioperative period and effectively blunted pressor response to intubation and extubation, leading to minimal requirements for additional analgesics and potent inhalational agents. There were less adverse events.
Background and Aim:Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a common for managing renal calculi. Pain in the initial post operatie period is relieved by infiltration of local anaesthetic around the nephrostomy tract. We aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of bupivacaine and ropivacaine.Methods:A total of 100 adult patients undergoing elective PCNL—under balanced general anaesthesia were randomly divided into bupivacaine group (Group B) and ropivacaine group (Group R). After completion of procedure, 23G spinal needle was inserted at 6 and 12 O’clock position under ultrasonic guidance up to renal capsule along the nephrostomy tube. A volume of 10 ml of either 0.25% bupivacaine or 0.25% ropivacaine solution was infiltrated in each tract while withdrawing the needle. Post-operative pain was assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS) and dynamic visual analogue scale (D-VAS) for initial 24 h. Intravenous tramadol was given as rescue analgesia when VAS >4. Time to first rescue analgesic, number of doses and total amount of tramadol required in initial 24 h and side-effects were noted.Results:Visual analogue scale and D-VAS at 6 h and 8 h in Group B was significantly higher than Group R. Mean time to first rescue analgesia in Group R was significantly longer than Group B. Mean number of doses of tramadol and total consumption of tramadol in 24 h was less in Group R, though not statistically significant.Conclusion:Peritubal infiltration of 0.25% ropivacaine infiltration along the nephrostomy tract is more effective than 0.25% bupivacaine in alleviating initial post-operative pain after PCNL.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.