METHODS: Thirty-seven patients were randomized to receive SCEA (n = 19) or placebo (n = 18) during colonoscopy. Additional rescue sedation was administered to patients if they had pain or discomfort during the procedure. Visual analogue scale was used to quantify the intensity of pain from the beginning to end of the procedure. Other variables analysed were the amount of sedation used, duration from start to caecal intubation, length of time for completion of colonoscopy and recovery time to home discharge.
RESULTS: Patients who received SCEA had a lower median pain score of 4.6 (interquartile range 5.7) compared to the placebo group of 6.0 (interquartile range 3.2). Statistical analysis comparing the groups revealed a non-significant P-value of 0.12, although more than 90% of the patients indicated willingness for SCEA as the primary analgesia if they were to repeat the procedure. Throughout the study, there were no adverse complications that occurred during the use of SCEA.
CONCLUSIONS: Even though this study did not demonstrate, a significance in pain reduction, SCEA remains a safe modality which, more than 90% of patients favoured as a substitute for pain relief during colonoscopy.
METHODS: Patients undergoing elective midline laparotomy through standardized incisions in two tertiary hospitals from February 2017 to September 2018 were randomized to either LS or SS. The primary outcome was post-operative patient-controlled analgesia morphine usage at 24 h. Secondary outcomes were presence of surgical site infection and length of hospital stay (LOHS). Categorical variables were analysed using chi-squared analysis. Outcomes of study were tested for normal distribution. Skewed data were analysed using Mann-Whitney U-test.
RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were recruited (42 SS and 44 LS). The median age was 66 (interquartile range (IQR) 15). Majority were males (62.8%) and Chinese (50%). The median incision length was 17 cm in both groups. The median patient-controlled analgesia morphine usage 24 h post-operatively did not differ significantly (SS 21 mg, IQR 28.3; LS 18.5 mg, IQR 33.8, P = 0.829). The median pain score at rest (SS 1, IQR 1; LS 1, IQR 2, P = 0.426) and movement (SS 3, IQR 1; LS 3, IQR 2, P = 0.307) did not differ significantly. LOHS was shorter in the SS group (SS 6, IQR 4; LS 8, IQR 5, P = 0.034). The rate of surgical site infection trended lower in the SS group with no statistical difference.
CONCLUSION: There were no differences in post-operative pain between SS and LS but we found that there were shorter LOHS in SS arm as secondary outcome.