2008
DOI: 10.1590/s0034-70942008000500001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estudo comparativo da eficácia analgésica pós-operatória de 20 mL de ropivacaína a 0,5, 0,75 ou 1% no bloqueio de plexo braquial pela via posterior

Abstract: Rev Bras AnestesiolARTIGO CIENTÍFICO 2008; 58: 5: 431-439 SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE RESUMO Cruvinel MGC, Castro CHV, Silva YP, Morais BS, França FO, Lago F -Estudo Comparativo da Eficácia Analgésica Pós-Operatória de 20 mL de Ropivacaína a 0,5, 0,75 ou 1% no Bloqueio de Plexo Braquial pela Via Posterior. JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS:As intervenções cirúrgicas por via artroscópica no ombro estão relacionadas com a dor pós-operató-ria de grande intensidade. Dentre as técnicas de analgesia, o bloqueio do plexo braquial … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Recently, the posterior brachial plexus block, also known as paravertebral cervical block, has received wide attention [1][2][3]7,27,28 . Different volumes of anesthetic have already been employed, but there is no definition of the ideal volume.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Recently, the posterior brachial plexus block, also known as paravertebral cervical block, has received wide attention [1][2][3]7,27,28 . Different volumes of anesthetic have already been employed, but there is no definition of the ideal volume.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Chi-square test was used to evaluate the other variables. The number of 19 patients in each group was previously calculated so that it could be noticed a difference of two points in VNS betweeen groups with a sampling capacity of 90% (beta error of 10%) and 95% of trust level (alfa error of 5%), considering the standard deviation of 2.1 obtained in similar previous study 7 . All results were considered significant to a significance probability inferior to 5% (p < 0.05).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%