| Literature DB >> 25152761 |
Wei-Ta Chen1, Fang-Chia Chang2, Yi-Hung Chen3, Jaung-Geng Lin4.
Abstract
Background. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the preferred option for urolithiasis treatment. However, intensities of pain may be induced and the sedative anesthetic or analgesics were usually needed. The aim of this study was to develop an improved acupuncture-assisted anesthesia approach in pain relief. Methods. We conducted a single-blind, randomized controlled study in China Medical University Hospital. Patients treated by ESWL due to upper urolithiasis were randomly divided into control group, sham-EA group, and 100 Hz EA group. The high frequency electroacupuncture (EA) was applied at the Weizhong acupoint (100 Hz EA group) for 20 minutes prior to the ESWL. In the sham-EA group, the same procedures were performed as those of 100 Hz EA group but no electric current was given to stimulate the acupoints. In the control group, no action was taken before operation. The information including the numbers and dosage of analgesic requirements, pain score, vital signs, and the satisfaction of procedure was collected. Results. A total of 74 subjects were recruited and we found that the interval to the first request analgesic, the number/total dosage of additional analgesic, recovery time from anesthesia, and the satisfaction were all better in both the 100 Hz EA and the sham-EA group. The 100 Hz EA also showed better relief of painful sensations by delaying the onset of pain. Conclusions. The 100 Hz EA and the sham-EA can effectively relieve pain due to ESWL as well as reducing the dosage of opium analgesic used.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25152761 PMCID: PMC4135135 DOI: 10.1155/2014/592319
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Demographic data analysis.
| U-I | U-II | U-III |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of people/group | 25 | 24 | 25 | |
| Gender | ||||
| Men: | 20 (80%) | 21 (88%) | 18 (72%) | 0.4021 |
| Female: | 5 (20%) | 3 (12%) | 7 (28%) | |
| ASA | ||||
| ASA-I: | 16 (64%) | 18 (75%) | 20 (80%) | 0.4282 |
| ASA-II: | 9 (36%) | 6 (25%) | 5 (20%) | |
| Age (yr) | 48.00 | 42.50 | 44.00 | 0.2327 |
| BH (cm) | 165.00 | 166.50 | 166.00 | 0.9230 |
| BW (kg) | 74.00 | 70.50 | 63.10 | 0.2539 |
Median (25%–75%).
Location and size of upper urolithiasis analysis.
| Number of people with calculi at the specific location and size of calculi (%) | U-I | U-II | U-III |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position | ||||
| L side stone | 17 (68%) | 14 (58%) | 13 (52%) | 0.5101 |
| R side stone | 8 (32%) | 10 (42%) | 12 (48%) | |
| Location | ||||
| UPJ | 4 (16%) | 1 (4%) | 3 (12%) | 0.5154 |
| Upper | 21 (84%) | 23 (96%) | 22 (88%) | |
| Middle | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Low | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Stone size (mm2) | 45.00 | 45.00 | 54.00 | 0.9725 |
Median (25%–75%).
Strength of lithotripsy shock wave for upper urolithiasis, counts of shock wave generated, and duration of lithotripsy operation.
| ESWL data | U-I | U-II | U-III |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shock wave intensity (KV) | 13.00 | 13.00 | 13.00 | 0.8724 |
| Total shock wave delivered | 3000 | 3000 | 3000 | 0.3997 |
| Duration of ESWL (min) | 55.00 | 52.50 | 50.00 | 0.3422 |
Median (25%–75%).
Different upper urolithiasis group and drug related data analysis.
| U-I | U-II | U-III |
| Multiple comparison | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of people who raise hands for analgesic (%) | |||||
| No | 5 (20%) | 11 (46%) | 14 (56%) | 0.0282∗ | I_III |
| Yes | 20 (80%) | 13 (54%) | 11 (44%) | ||
| Time of first hands up (minutes) | 10.00 | 31.00 | >45.00 | 0.0003∗∗∗ | I > II, I > III |
| Counts of hands up for more analgesic | 2.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.0002∗∗∗ | I > II, I > III |
| Total dormicum (mg/kg) | 2.96 | 2.80 | 2.60 | 0.2847 | |
| Alfentanil (ug/kg) | 210.00 | 162.00 | 0.00 | 0.0096∗∗ | I > III |
| Total alfentanil (ug/kg) | 462.00 | 152.83 | 0.00 | <0.0001∗∗∗ | I > II, I > III |
| Recovery time (min) | 15.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | <0.0001∗∗∗ | I > II, I > III |
Median (25%–75%).
∗ P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, and ∗∗∗P < 0.001.
Pain scores for different upper urolithiasis groups.
| VAS | U-I | U-II | U-III |
| Multiple comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st pain score | 3.00 | 3.00 | 0.00 | 0.0439∗ | I > III |
| Max pain score | 4.00 | 3.00 | 0.00 | 0.009∗∗ | I > III |
| Controlled pain score | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | <0.001∗∗∗ | I > II, I > III |
Median (25%–75%).
∗ P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, and ∗∗∗P < 0.001.
Analgesic side effects for different upper urolithiasis groups.
| Side effect of analgesic | U-I | U-II | U-III |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Do not feel dizzy at all after operation (score 0) | 17 (68%) | 22 (92%) | 21 (84%) | 0.1009 |
| Feel slightly dizzy after operation (score 1) | 7 (28%) | 1 (4%) | 4 (16%) | |
| Feel dizzy and walk wobbly after operation (score 2) | 1 (4%) | 1 (4%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Feel very dizzy, walk wobbly, and nauseate after operation (score 3) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Feel very dizzy, walk wobbly, and vomit after operation (score 4) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
Pain controllability satisfaction analysis for patients in different upper urolithiasis groups.
| Patients' satisfaction level for pain controllability | U-I | U-II | U-III |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 = very satisfied | 4 (16%) | 13 (54%) | 20 (80%) | 0.00∗∗∗ |
| 3 = satisfied | 8 (32%) | 11 (46%) | 5 (20%) | |
| 2 = slightly satisfied | 13 (52%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| 1 = unsatisfied | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| 0 = very unsatisfied | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
***P < 0.001.