| Literature DB >> 26171392 |
Shih-Jyun Shen1, Pei-Yu Peng2, Hsiu-Pin Chen1, Jr-Rung Lin3, Mel S Lee4, Huang-Ping Yu1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this double-blind, randomized study was to investigate whether the addition of intra-articular bupivacaine to intravenous parecoxib could improve pain relief in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26171392 PMCID: PMC4480247 DOI: 10.1155/2015/450805
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Flow diagram of the study.
General characteristics of patients enrolled.
| Control group ( | Bupivacaine group ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | Age (year) | 51.2 ± 13.5 | 53.1 ± 14.8 | 0.581 |
| Male gender | 9 (56%) | 11 (55%) | 0.940 | |
|
| ||||
| ASA status | II | 6 (38%) | 8 (40%) | 0.878 |
| III | 10 (63%) | 12 (60%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Preoperative comorbidities | Hypertension | 4 (25%) | 6 (30%) | 0.519 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 4 (25%) | 7 (35%) | 0.391 | |
| Asthma | 1 (6%) | 2 (10%) | 0.585 | |
| Old cerebral embolism | 1 (6%) | 1 (5%) | 0.698 | |
| Old myocardial infarction | 1 (6%) | 1 (5%) | 0.698 | |
Continuous variables were described as mean ± standard deviation, and the categorical variable was described as number of events (n/%); the remaining parameters were compared using an independent t-test, and statistical significance was considered when p < 0.05. Categorical variables were the number of events (n); the Chi-square test was used, and events less than 5 were compared with Fisher's exact test, p < 0.05.
Numeric rating scale (NRS) scores in POR and ward.
| Control group | Bupivacaine group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| NRS in POR | 7.9 (6.7, 9.1) | 4.5 (3.2, 5.8) | 0.001 |
| NRS 24 hours later in ward | 7.6 (6.4, 8.7) | 4.5 (3.6, 5.3) | 0.0002 |
Continuous variables were described as the mean and 95% confidence interval; an independent t-test was used, and statistical significance was considered when p < 0.05. POR: postoperative room.
Postoperative pain score during the first 24 hours.
| NRS score | Time (hours) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| POR | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 20 | 24 | ||
| Control group ( | 0–3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 0 |
| 4–6 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |
| 7–10 | 13 | 12 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 10 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Bupivacaine group ( | 0–3 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 8 |
| 4–6 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 7 | 10 | |
| 7–10 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | |
Numeric rating scale (NRS) scores were divided into 3 groups: mild (NRS score: 0–3), moderate (NRS score: 4–6), and severe (NRS score: 7–10). POR: postoperative room.
Figure 2Postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) scores in the postoperative room (POR) and on the ward. Means and 95% confidence intervals are shown. Scores of the bupivacaine group were lower than those of the control group postoperatively during the first 24 hours. The numbers of patients contributed to each data point were the same as the initial numbers of patients.
Postoperative meperidine consumption during the first 24 hours.
| Control group | Bupivacaine group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Postoperative meperidine consumption (mg/Kg) | 3.08 ± 0.80 | 2.34 ± 0.42 | 0.001 |
Continuous variables were described as mean ± standard deviation and an independent t-test was used; statistical significance was considered when p < 0.05.