Literature DB >> 8111947

Patient satisfaction with intravenous PCA or epidural morphine.

K J Egan1, L B Ready.   

Abstract

In many institutions postoperative patients may receive morphine for analgesia administered into the epidural space, epidural opioid analgesia (EOA), or through intravenous self-administered patient-controlled analgesia pumps (PCA). Although a number of studies have compared the two approaches with regard to efficacy and side effects, there is less known with regard to patient satisfaction and its sources. In this study, 711 patients using PCA morphine and 205 patients receiving epidural morphine following a variety of gynaecological, urological, orthopaedic, and general surgical procedures rated their satisfaction with the method they used on a 0-10 verbal analogue satisfaction scale (0 = very dissatisfied; 10 = very satisfied). A consecutive subset of 100 patients (50 from EOA group and 50 from the PCA group) underwent further evaluation to identify advantages and disadvantages of the technique used which contributed to their satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction. Overall satisfaction (mean +/- SD) in the two large groups was 8.6 +/- 1.8 for PCA and 9.0 +/- 1.5 for EOA (P < 0.01). In the subset of 100 patients, there were differences between the EOA and PCA groups with regard to the advantages and disadvantages selected. Patients in the PCA group identified "personal control" and "method worked quickly" as advantages whereas patients receiving EOA selected "clear mind," "effective relief resting," and "effective relief while moving or coughing." The single disadvantage identified more frequently by PCA patients was "pain immediately after surgery before method became effective." Disadvantages identified more frequently by EOA patients were "side effects" and "poor pain relief." We conclude that overall patient satisfaction was high whether patients received PCA or EOA.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8111947     DOI: 10.1007/BF03009653

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Anaesth        ISSN: 0832-610X            Impact factor:   5.063


  11 in total

1.  Patient-controlled analgesia following cesarean section: a comparison with epidural and intramuscular narcotics.

Authors:  J C Eisenach; S C Grice; D M Dewan
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 7.892

2.  Development of an anesthesiology-based postoperative pain management service.

Authors:  L B Ready; R Oden; H S Chadwick; C Benedetti; G A Rooke; R Caplan; L M Wild
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 7.892

3.  Epidural morphine after anterior cruciate ligament repair: a comparison with patient-controlled intravenous morphine.

Authors:  K A Loper; L B Ready
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 5.108

4.  Epidural morphine provides greater pain relief than patient-controlled intravenous morphine following cholecystectomy.

Authors:  K A Loper; L B Ready; M Nessly; S E Rapp
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 5.108

5.  Epidural narcotic and patient-controlled analgesia for post-cesarean section pain relief.

Authors:  D M Harrison; R Sinatra; L Morgese; J H Chung
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 7.892

6.  Postoperative pain therapy: a survey of patients' expectations and their experiences.

Authors:  Harry Owen; Virginia McMillan; Dianne Rogowski
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 6.961

7.  Patients' expectations of patient-controlled analgesia.

Authors:  M T Kluger; H Owen
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 6.955

8.  Postoperative pain management in gynecology oncology patients utilizing epidural opiate analgesia and patient-controlled analgesia.

Authors:  S E Rapp; L B Ready; B E Greer
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 5.482

9.  Patient-controlled epidural analgesia in labour: varying bolus dose and lockout interval.

Authors:  D R Gambling; C J Huber; J Berkowitz; P Howell; J E Swenerton; P L Ross; C T Crochetière; T J Pavy
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 5.063

Review 10.  Pediatric pain clinics: recommendations for their development.

Authors:  C Berde; N F Sethna; B Masek; M Fosburg; S Rocklin
Journal:  Pediatrician       Date:  1989
View more
  9 in total

1.  Modifiers of Patient-Controlled Analgesia Efficacy in Acute and Chronic Pain.

Authors: 
Journal:  Curr Rev Pain       Date:  1999

2.  Patient satisfaction.

Authors:  R C Etches
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 5.063

3.  Postoperative analgesia and patient satisfaction.

Authors:  A N Sandler; J Katz
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 5.063

4.  [The clinical use of spinal opioids, part 1].

Authors:  N Rawal
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  1996-08-26       Impact factor: 1.107

Review 5.  Postoperative patient-controlled analgesia in the elderly: risks and benefits of epidural versus intravenous administration.

Authors:  Claude Mann; Yvan Pouzeratte; Jean-Jacques Eledjam
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 3.923

6.  Plasma Concentrations of Morphine during Postoperative Pain Control.

Authors:  Hahck Soo Park; Jong Hak Kim; Yi Jeong Kim; Dong Yeon Kim
Journal:  Korean J Pain       Date:  2011-09-06

7.  Combined Lumbar-Sacral Plexus Block in High Surgical Risk Geriatric Patients undergoing Early Hip Fracture Surgery.

Authors:  S Petchara; S Paphon; A Vanlapa; P Boontikar; K Disya
Journal:  Malays Orthop J       Date:  2015-11

8.  Assessment of patient satisfaction with acute pain management service: Monitoring quality of care in clinical setting.

Authors:  Fizzah Farooq; Robyna Khan; Aliya Ahmed
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2016-04

9.  An Audit of Changes in Outcomes of Acute Pain Service: Evolution Over the Last 2 Decades.

Authors:  Sheng Jia Low; Stanley Sau Ching Wong; Qiu Qiu; Yvonne Lee; Timmy Chi Wing Chan; Michael G Irwin; Chi Wai Cheung
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.817

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.