Balanced pre-emptive analgesia: does it work? A double-blind, controlled study in bilaterally symmetrical oral surgery.
We studied 32 patients undergoing bilateral symmetrical lower third molar surgery under general anaesthesia to determine if the combined effects of pre-emptive local anaesthetic block using 0.5% bupivacaine, together with i.v. tenoxicam and alfentanil had any benefits over postoperative administration. Patients acted as their own controls and were allocated randomly to have surgery start on one side, the second side always being the pre-emptive side. Difference in pain intensity between the two sides was determined using visual analogue scales completed by each individual at 6 h, and at 1, 3 and 6 days after operation. A long-form McGill pain questionnaire was also used to assess difference in pain intensity between the two sides on the morning after surgery. There was no significant difference in pain intensity at any time after surgery. Our findings indicate that the combined use of pre-emptive analgesia from 0.5% bupivacaine, tenoxicam and alfentanil did not reduce postoperative pain intensity in patients undergoing molar exodontia. (+info)
Tenoxicam and paracetamol-codeine combination after oral surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
We studied 90 adults undergoing surgical removal of at least both lower third molar teeth as day cases under standardized general anaesthesia. Patients were allocated randomly (with stratification for surgeon) to receive tenoxicam 40 mg, tenoxicam 20 mg or placebo i.v. at induction of anaesthesia and orally (effervescent tablets) with food on each of the subsequent 2 days. Panadeine (paracetamol 500 mg-codeine 8 mg) was given before operation and was available as needed for pain thereafter, to a limit of two tablets every 4 h. Nefopam i.v. was also available. Efficacy variables and adverse reactions were assessed over 6 days. Over the 6-day period, patients who received tenoxicam reported less pain on rest (area under the curve; P < 0.05) and less disturbance in sleep (P < 0.01) even though they used fewer Panadeine tablets (P < 0.05). Differences between tenoxicam 40 mg and 20 mg were not significant. There was no significant difference in nefopam requirements or side effects, and no adverse event attributable to the study medication. (+info)
Pain-mediated altered absorption and metabolism of ibuprofen: an explanation for decreased serum enantiomer concentration after dental surgery.
AIMS: Rapid onset of analgesia is essential in the treatment of acute pain. There is evidence that conditions of stress cause delayed and decreased pain relief from oral analgesic products through impaired absorption. The aim was to determine the effect of surgery for removal of wisdom teeth on the plasma concentration-time profile of ibuprofen enantiomers. METHODS: Racemic ibuprofen, 200 mg in one group (n=7) and 600 mg in another group (n=7) was administered 1 week before (control) and again after (test) surgical removal of wisdom teeth. Serum concentrations of ibuprofen enantiomers were measured for 6 h. RESULTS: During the control phase, S- and R-ibuprofen concentrations were within the suggested therapeutic range. Surgery resulted in a 2 h delay in the mean time to peak concentration, significant decreases in serum ibuprofen concentration following both doses, and a fall to sub-optimal serum concentrations following the 200 mg dose. During the first 2 h after the 200 mg dose, dental extraction resulted in a significant reduction of the area under serum drug concentration (AUC (0, 2 h) mg l-1 h) from 5.6+/-2.9 to 1.6+/-1.8 (P<0.01) and from 5.5+/-3.0 to 2.1+/-2.0 (P<0.05) for S and R-ibuprofen, respectively. Similar observations were made following the 600 mg dose for AUC (0, 2 h) of S-ibuprofen (from 14.2+/-6.1 to 7.2+/-5.5 mg l-1 h, P<0.05) with no significant difference for R-ibuprofen (from 14.4+/-9.5 to 5.8+/-7. 1). AUC (0, 6 h) was also significantly reduced by surgery. The pattern of stereoselectivity in serum ibuprofen concentration was reversed by surgery such that the S enantiomer was predominant in the control phase but not in the post-surgery phase, which is suggestive of reduced metabolic chiral inversion. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery for wisdom tooth removal resulted in substantial decreases in the serum concentration of ibuprofen enantiomers and a prolongation in the time to peak concentration. Reduced absorption and altered metabolism are the likely cause of these changes. Thus, dental patients may experience a delayed response and possible treatment failure when taking ibuprofen for pain relief after surgery. Our observation may have implications for the treatment of other diseases. (+info)
Effectiveness of preoperative analgesics on postoperative dental pain: a study.
Patients undergoing extractions of third molar teeth under general anesthesia were given a placebo, diclofenac (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) 100 mg, or methadone (an opiate) 10 mg 60 to 90 min prior to surgery, and their pain scores and postoperative medication requirements were measured for 3 days. All patients received local anesthetic blocks and analgesic drugs during the perioperative period. There were no significant differences between the three groups in the pain scores and medication requirements during the period of study. It was concluded that preoperative use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opiates may not offer a preemptive analgesic effect in patients who have had adequate analgesia during the surgery. Continued use of analgesic drugs during the postoperative period is perhaps more useful for this purpose. There appears to be a higher incidence of vomiting following opiates (methadone), precluding its clinical use in day-care patients. (+info)
Epinephrine, magnesium, and dental local anesthetic solutions.
Plasma levels of magnesium were unaffected by the inclusion of epinephrine in lidocaine dental local anesthetic solutions in patients having third molar surgery under general anesthesia. (+info)
Analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy of tenoxicam and diclofenac sodium after third molar surgery.
Tenoxicam and diclofenac sodium were compared with each other for analgesic efficacy following removal of third molars under general anesthesia. Thirty-five healthy patients between the ages of 18 and 28 yr were randomly allocated to two groups to participate in this study. Patients in Group A (n = 17) received a single intravenous injection of tenoxicam 40 mg at induction of anesthesia, followed by a 20-mg tablet given in the evening of the day of the operation and thereafter, one 20-mg tablet daily from days 2 to 7. Group B (n = 18) received a single intramuscular injection of diclofenac sodium 75 mg at induction of anesthesia, followed by a 50-mg tablet 4 to 6 hr after the operation and again, between 2100 hr and 2200 hr the same day. Thereafter, a 50-mg tablet was taken 3 times daily for the next 6 days. Pain was measured hourly for the first 4 hr postoperatively, then at 21 hr, and thereafter in the morning and the evenings on days 2 to 7. The highest pain scores were obtained 1 hr postoperatively for both trial groups. At 1 and 2 hr postoperatively, no statistical significant differences in pain scores could be shown for both groups. However, at 3 and 4 hr postoperatively, patients in the tenoxicam group experienced significantly (P < or = 0.05) less pain than those in the diclofenac sodium group. On the evening of the third postoperative day, the tenoxicam group of patients experienced significantly less pain (P < or = 0.05) than those in the diclofenac sodium group. This was again the case on the morning of the fourth postoperative day. On the fifth, sixth, and seventh postoperative days, the average pain scores for patients in the tenoxicam group were statistically significantly lower, both mornings and evenings, than those in the diclofenac sodium group of patients (P = 0.05). (+info)
Comparison of recovery of propofol and methohexital sedation using an infusion pump.
Two sedative anesthetic agents administered by an infusion pump were compared during third molar surgery. Forty American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II volunteers were randomly allocated to two groups. All subjects received supplemental oxygen via a nasal hood, fentanyl (0.0007 mg/kg intravenous [i.v.] bolus), and midazolam (1 mg/2 min) titrated to effect. Patients then received either 0.3 mg/kg of methohexital or 0.5 mg/kg of propofol via an infusion pump. Upon completion of the bolus, a continuous infusion of 0.05 mg/kg/min methohexital or 0.066 mg/kg/min propofol was administered throughout the procedure. Hemo-dynamic and respiratory parameters and psychomotor performance were compared for the two groups and no significant differences were found. The continuous infusion method maintained a steady level of sedation. Patients receiving propofol had a smoother sedation as judged by the surgeon and anesthetist. (+info)
Impact of third molar removal on demands for postoperative care and job disruption: does anaesthetic choice make a difference?
A prospective cohort study was undertaken to investigate the influences of anaesthetic modality and surgical difficulty on social reintegration and demands on health services after third molar removal. The study was undertaken at the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Cardiff Dental Hospital. Of 444 patients, 266 (60%) had their third molars removed. The main outcome measures included anaesthetic modality, surgical difficulty (WHARFE scores), utilisation of health services, effects on work, school and home life. In all, 101 (40%) patients were treated under local anaesthesia (LA) +/- intravenous (i.v.) sedation and 165 (60%) under general anaesthesia (GA); 81 (49%) as inpatients and 84 (51%) as day cases. Of these patients, 38 (14%) returned to the hospital and 74 (28%) utilised primary care services postoperatively in addition to a standard review appointment. Patients treated under GA made more demands on primary care services (chi 2 = 6.41, df = 2, P < 0.05) and took more time away from work (P < 0.05). Patients underestimated the time they needed to recover. There was similar disruption to job, college and home life. There were no links between disruption and particular anaesthetic modalities and surgical difficulty. Surgery under GA was linked to increased postoperative demands on primary care, but not secondary care, and to longer job disruption. This could not fully be attributed to surgical difficulty. (+info)