| Literature DB >> 31497525 |
Fatemeh Davari-Tanha1, Saghar Samimi2, Zahra Khalaj1, Ehsan Bastanhagh2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed at evaluating the effect of intraperitoneal infusion of normal saline (NS) and pulmonary recruitment maneuver (PRM) on the reduction of pain in shoulder, upper abdomen, and incision site after elective laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.Entities:
Keywords: Carbon Dioxide; Intraperitoneal Infusion; Laparoscopy; Pain; Pulmonary Recruitment
Year: 2019 PMID: 31497525 PMCID: PMC6712360 DOI: 10.5812/aapm.92444
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anesth Pain Med ISSN: 2228-7523
Mean Duration of Operation Among the Intervention Groups[a]
| Group | A (N = 70) | B (N = 70) | C (N = 70) | D (N = 70) | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 82.1 ± 8.1 | 78.8 ± 7.1 | 82.0 ± 9.7 | 77.7 ± 7.7 | 0.21 |
Abbreviations: A, normal saline intraperitoneal infusion; B, pulmonary recruitment maneuver; C, simultaneously received two interventions; D, control group.
aValues are expressed as mean ± SD.
Figure 1.Pain pattern in shoulder at different time points over the trial. A, normal saline intraperitoneal infusion; B, pulmonary recruitment maneuver; C, simultaneously received two interventions; D, control group.
Figure 3.Pain in incision site at different time points over the trial. A, normal saline intraperitoneal infusion; B, pulmonary recruitment maneuver; C, simultaneously received two interventions; D, control group.
Changes from Baseline for the Studied Outcomes Measure[a]
| Variable | Follow-Up, min | P Value[ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 0.01 | |||||
| A | 0.22 ± 0.78 | 0.48 ± 1.22 | 0.43 ± 1.50 | 1.38 ± 1.49 | 1.05 ± 1.37 | |
| B | 0.14 ± 0.68 | 0.44 ± 1.27 | 0.77 ± 1.51 | 1.90 ± 2.41 | 0.40 ± 0.80 | |
| C | 0.20 ± 0.82 | 0.40 ± 0.92 | 1.04 ± 2.02 | 0.57 ± 1.17 | 0.80 ± 1.07 | |
| D | 0.79 ± 1.91 | 2.26 ± 2.65 | 0.89 ± 1.48 | 1.39 ± 1.49 | 1.24 ± 1.09 | |
|
| 0.16 | |||||
| A | 0.11 ± 0.53 | 0.26 ± 0.71 | 0.51 ± 0.92 | 0.28 ± 0.83 | 0.40 ± 0.82 | |
| B | 0.09 ± 0.44 | 0.10 ± 0.54 | 0.60 ± 1.22 | 0.71 ± 1.07 | 0.20 ± 0.73 | |
| C | 0.03 ± 0.23 | 0.16 ± 0.67 | 0.36 ± 0.94 | 0.60 ± 1.01 | 0.36 ± 0.72 | |
| D | 0.34 ± 1.35 | 0.23 ± 0.92 | 0.24 ± 0.69 | 0.51 ± 0.91 | 0.27 ± 0.70 | |
|
| < 0.001 | |||||
| A | 0.75 ± 1.57 | 2.80 ± 2.65 | 2.49 ± 2.18 | 2.38 ± 2.00 | 1.34 ± 1.22 | |
| B | 2.44 ± 2.46 | 2.49 ± 2.17 | 2.44 ± 1.97 | 1.84 ± 1.92 | 1.21 ± 1.33 | |
| C | 0.77 ± 1.71 | 2.54 ± 2.63 | 2.71 ± 1.75 | 2.27 ± 1.51 | 1.10 ± 1.09 | |
| D | 2.47 ± 2.85 | 3.14 ± 2.75 | 2.07 ± 1.70 | 1.56 ± 1.46 | 0.91 ± 1.11 | |
Abbreviations: A, normal saline intraperitoneal infusion; B, pulmonary recruitment maneuver; C, simultaneously received two interventions; D, control group.
aValues are expressed as mean ± SD.
bP value for interaction of time interval and intervention status.
Figure 4.The total number of occurrence of complications episodes at different time points over the trial. A, normal saline intraperitoneal infusion; B, pulmonary recruitment maneuver; C, simultaneously received two interventions; D, control group.