Vinita Singh1, Manu Pathak, G P Singh. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India. vinitasingh70@indiatimes.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of oral midazolam and oral butorphanol for their sedative analgesic effects in children. METHODS:Sixty children, aged 2 to 10 yrs, of ASA physical status I and II, scheduled for surgical procedures of 1 to 2 hrs duration were randomized to one of the two groups. Group I: children received midazolam 0.5 mg/kg orally and Group II: children received butorphanol 0.2 mg/kg orally. Score of the children was assessed every 5 minutes till the induction of anesthesia. Intraoperative and postoperative analgesic requirement was recorded along with postoperative recovery and complications. RESULTS: The groups were identical regarding the patient's characteristics, hemodynamic variables, duration of surgery and awakening time. Less time was required for the onset and time of maximum sedation in the butorphanol group (p<0.05). Sedation scores were similar among the groups at all time intervals, while the scores were higher in the butorphanol group at the time of induction (p<0.05). Less number of children required intraoperative and postoperative rescue analgesia in the butorphanol group (p<0.05). Statistically significant difference was found among the groups in respect to complete amnesia (50% in group I vs 80% I group II, p<0.05) and recollection (40% in group I vs 10% in group II, p<0.05). CONCLUSION:Oral butorphanol is comparable to oral midazolam in children but analgesia along with sedation is an additional advantage which makes it better than midazolam without a significant increase in side effects.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of oral midazolam and oral butorphanol for their sedative analgesic effects in children. METHODS: Sixty children, aged 2 to 10 yrs, of ASA physical status I and II, scheduled for surgical procedures of 1 to 2 hrs duration were randomized to one of the two groups. Group I: children received midazolam 0.5 mg/kg orally and Group II: children received butorphanol 0.2 mg/kg orally. Score of the children was assessed every 5 minutes till the induction of anesthesia. Intraoperative and postoperative analgesic requirement was recorded along with postoperative recovery and complications. RESULTS: The groups were identical regarding the patient's characteristics, hemodynamic variables, duration of surgery and awakening time. Less time was required for the onset and time of maximum sedation in the butorphanol group (p<0.05). Sedation scores were similar among the groups at all time intervals, while the scores were higher in the butorphanol group at the time of induction (p<0.05). Less number of children required intraoperative and postoperative rescue analgesia in the butorphanol group (p<0.05). Statistically significant difference was found among the groups in respect to complete amnesia (50% in group I vs 80% I group II, p<0.05) and recollection (40% in group I vs 10% in group II, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Oral butorphanol is comparable to oral midazolam in children but analgesia along with sedation is an additional advantage which makes it better than midazolam without a significant increase in side effects.