S T Ho1, J J Wang, H S Liu, O Y Hu, J I Tzeng, W J Liaw. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, National Denfense Medical Center/Tri-Service General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and side effects of PCA nalbuphine (intravenous) versus morphine on postoperative pain in Chinese gynecologic patients. METHODS:Sixty women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy or myomectomy under spinal anesthesia were enrolled into the investigation. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 30 each). Group 1 received intravenous nalbuphine using PCA device for the management of postoperative pain, whereas group 2 received PCA morphine for the same purpose. During the first 48 hours postoperatively, we collected the following data: analgesic doses, pain scores, vital signs, nausea, vomiting, pruritus and dizziness. RESULTS: The results showed that despite different treatments, pain scores on day 1 and day 2 postoperatively were low and were not significantly different between groups. Meanwhile, the cumulative consumption of PCA nalbuphine (32 +/- 10 mg) and PCA morphine (30 +/- 9 mg) was similar. Both treatments showed only minor side effects and the incidence of each side effect was not significant between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both PCA nalbuphine and morphine are effective in the treatment of postoperative pain in Chinese gynecologic patients undergoing hysterectomy or myomectomy after spinal anesthesia and the potency of nalbuphine is similar to that of morphine.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and side effects of PCA nalbuphine (intravenous) versus morphine on postoperative pain in Chinese gynecologic patients. METHODS: Sixty women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy or myomectomy under spinal anesthesia were enrolled into the investigation. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 30 each). Group 1 received intravenous nalbuphine using PCA device for the management of postoperative pain, whereas group 2 received PCA morphine for the same purpose. During the first 48 hours postoperatively, we collected the following data: analgesic doses, pain scores, vital signs, nausea, vomiting, pruritus and dizziness. RESULTS: The results showed that despite different treatments, pain scores on day 1 and day 2 postoperatively were low and were not significantly different between groups. Meanwhile, the cumulative consumption of PCA nalbuphine (32 +/- 10 mg) and PCA morphine (30 +/- 9 mg) was similar. Both treatments showed only minor side effects and the incidence of each side effect was not significant between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both PCA nalbuphine and morphine are effective in the treatment of postoperative pain in Chinese gynecologic patients undergoing hysterectomy or myomectomy after spinal anesthesia and the potency of nalbuphine is similar to that of morphine.