Ki-Bum Park1, Younghoon Jeon2, Junggu Yi3, Ji-Hyun Kim3, Seung-Yeon Chung3, Kyung-Hwa Kwak4. 1. Keimyoung University, School of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Daegu, República da Coreia. 2. Kyungpook National University, School of Dentistry, Department of Anesthesiology, Daegu, República da Coreia. 3. Kyungpook National University, School of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Daegu, República da Coreia. 4. Kyungpook National University, School of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Daegu, República da Coreia. Electronic address: kwakkh@knu.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Rocuronium causes pain and withdrawal movement during induction of anesthesia. In this study, palonosetron was investigated to have analgesic effect on the reduction of rocuronium-induced withdrawal movement. METHODS:120 patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups to receive either saline, lidocaine 20mg, or palonosetron 0.075mg with a tourniquet applied two minutes before thiopental sodium (5mg.kg-1) was given intravenously. After loss of consciousness, rocuronium (0.6mg.kg-1) was injected and the withdrawal movement was estimated by 4-point scale in a double-blind manner. RESULTS: The overall incidence of rocuronium withdrawal movement was 50% with lidocaine (p=0.038), 38% with palonosetron (p=0.006) compared with 75% for saline. The incidence of no pain to mild pain was significantly lower in the lidocaine and palonosetron groups (85% and 92% respectively) than in the saline group (58%). However, there was no significant difference in withdrawal movement between the lidocaine and palonosetron groups. There was no severe movement with palonosetron. CONCLUSION: Pretreatment of palonosetron with venous occlusion may attenuate rocuronium-induced withdrawal movement as effective as the use of lidocaine. It suggested that peripheral action of palonosetron was effective to reduce rocuronium-induced withdrawal movement.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Rocuronium causes pain and withdrawal movement during induction of anesthesia. In this study, palonosetron was investigated to have analgesic effect on the reduction of rocuronium-induced withdrawal movement. METHODS: 120 patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups to receive either saline, lidocaine 20mg, or palonosetron 0.075mg with a tourniquet applied two minutes before thiopental sodium (5mg.kg-1) was given intravenously. After loss of consciousness, rocuronium (0.6mg.kg-1) was injected and the withdrawal movement was estimated by 4-point scale in a double-blind manner. RESULTS: The overall incidence of rocuroniumwithdrawal movement was 50% with lidocaine (p=0.038), 38% with palonosetron (p=0.006) compared with 75% for saline. The incidence of no pain to mild pain was significantly lower in the lidocaine and palonosetron groups (85% and 92% respectively) than in the saline group (58%). However, there was no significant difference in withdrawal movement between the lidocaine and palonosetron groups. There was no severe movement with palonosetron. CONCLUSION: Pretreatment of palonosetron with venous occlusion may attenuate rocuronium-induced withdrawal movement as effective as the use of lidocaine. It suggested that peripheral action of palonosetron was effective to reduce rocuronium-induced withdrawal movement.