METHODS: A prospective, double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing the post-operative pain score between BSCPB and LWI was conducted among patients undergoing thyroid surgery. Ropivacaine 0.50% was used in the study. Pain score was measured at 4, 12, 16 and 24 h after surgery using the visual analog scale (VAS). Subcutaneous injection of Tramadol was given whenever the pain score was ≥4 or requested by patients.
RESULTS: A total of 70 patients were recruited, with 35 patients on each arm. There was no statistical difference in the post-operative pain score between the two groups at 4 h (p = 0.208), 12 h (p = 0.860), 16 h (p = 0.376) and 24 h (p = 0.375) after surgery. Time to the first rescue dose of Tramadol between the two arms was also insignificant (p = 0.949). One patient in the BSCPB arm developed transient left upper limb weakness, which resolved 12 h after surgery.
CONCLUSION: LWI remains the simplest, safest and most economical method of pain management. While BSCPB is comparable, it does however, come with potential regional block related complications.
A 53-year-old woman presented with left-sided abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting for the past 3 months with associated loss of appetite and weight. On physical examination, there was a large, ill-defined, firm mass at the epigastrium. Ultrasonography showed heterogeneously hypoechoic filling defect within the dilated main portal vein. The filling defect showed florid signals on Doppler mode and it appeared to be an extension of a larger periportal mass. Contrast enhanced abdominal computed tomography confirmed a large distal gastric mass infiltrating into the periportal structures, including the main portal vein and the splenic vein. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed 2 days later showed an irregular, exophytic mass extending from the antrum into the first part of duodenum. The mass was deemed inoperable. Histopathological examination showed gastric adenocarcinoma. She was started on anticoagulant, chemotherapy and pain management. Follow-up computed tomography 4 months later showed liver metastases and formation of collateral blood vessels.
METHODS: Plasma SPM were measured in samples obtained from two double-blind controlled interventions. The first, included 51 women mean age 53 ± 1.5 years, undergoing breast surgery allocated to either intravenous saline, or dexamethasone (4 mg or 8 mg) after induction of anaesthesia. The second study included 31 women of mean age 44 ± 0.5 years undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery that were allocated to either saline, or dexamethasone (4 mg). SPM (18-HEPE, 17-HDHA, RvE2, RvD1 17R-RvD1 and RvD2) were measured in plasma collected prior to induction of anaesthesia and at 24 h, and 6 weeks post-surgery. Pain was assessed using a verbal analogue scale at discharge from the post-anaesthesia recovery unit. The data from each study was combined to examine the effect of dexamethasone on plasma SPM. The relationship between pain score and SPM was examined using ordinal logistic regression.
RESULTS: The SPM 18-HEPE, 17-HDHA, RvE2, RvD1 17R-RvD1 and RvD2 were detectable in all plasma samples. There was no significant difference in any SPM due to dexamethasone over the duration of the study. There was a fall in 17-HDHA between baseline and 24 h in both the dexamethasone and saline groups (P = 0.003) but no change in the downstream SPM (RvD1, 17R-RvD1 and RvD2) or 18-HEPE and RvE2. Pain score was negatively related to levels of RvE2 measured prior to induction of anaesthesia (rho = -0.2991, P = 0.006) and positively related to BMI (rho = 0.279, P = 0.011). In ordinal logistic regression the odds ratio for RvE2 was 0.931 (CI 0.880, 0.986; P = 0.014); after adjusting for the effect of BMI indicating that an increase in RvE2 of 1 pg/ml would result in a 6.9 % fall in pain score. Allocation to a dexamethasone group did not influence the pain score or the relationship between RvE2 and pain score.
CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone administered as an anti-emetic does not affect plasma SPM levels. An elevated RvE2 level prior to surgery is predictive of a lower perceived pain score post-anaesthesia.
METHODS: Twenty-two patients (11 male, 11 female; mean age, 19.8 ± 3.1 years) with Angle Class II Division 1 malocclusion were recruited for this split-mouth clinical trial; they required extraction of maxillary first premolars bilaterally. After leveling and alignment with self-ligating brackets (SmartClip SL3; 3M Unitek, St Paul, Minn), a 150-g force was applied to retract the canines bilaterally using 6-mm nickel-titanium closed-coil springs on 0.019 x 0.025-in stainless steel archwires. A gallium-aluminum-arsenic diode laser (iLas; Biolase, Irvine, Calif) with a wavelength of 940 nm in a continuous mode (energy density, 7.5 J/cm2/point; diameter of optical fiber tip, 0.04 cm2) was applied at 5 points buccally and palatally around the canine roots on the experimental side; the other side was designated as the placebo. Laser irradiation was applied at baseline and then repeated after 3 weeks for 2 more consecutive follow-up visits. Questionnaires based on the numeric rating scale were given to the patients to record their pain intensity for 1 week. Impressions were made at each visit before the application of irradiation at baseline and the 3 visits. Models were scanned with a CAD/CAM scanner (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland).
RESULTS: Canine retraction was significantly greater (1.60 ± 0.38 mm) on the experimental side compared with the placebo side (0.79 ± 0.35 mm) (P <0.05). Pain was significantly less on the experimental side only on the first day after application of LLLI and at the second visit (1.4 ± 0.82 and 1.4 ± 0.64) compared with the placebo sides (2.2 ± 0.41 and 2.4 ± 1.53).
CONCLUSIONS: Low-level laser irradiation applied at 3-week intervals can accelerate orthodontic tooth movement and reduce the pain associated with it.