Saipin Muangman

A prospective, randomized trial of silver containing hydrofiber dressing versus 1% silver sulfadiazine for the treatment of partial thickness burns

Silver sulfadiazine has been used as a topical burn wound treatment for many years. Pain associated with dressing changes is a common problem in burn wounds. Aquacel Ag, a hydrofiber dressing coated with ionic silver has been reported to reduce burn wound infection and promote antimicrobial activity. The purpose of this study was to show the benefits of Aquacel Ag for the treatment of partial thickness burns. This prospective randomized study was conducted in 70 patients who had partial thickness burns less than 15% of total body surface area and were treated at Siriraj outpatient burn clinic during December 2006–February 2008. Patients were divided into two groups: Aquacel Ag‐treated group with dressing changes every 3 days (35 patients) and 1% silver sulfadiazine‐treated group, with daily dressing changes (35 patients). There was no difference in demographic data including age, gender, burn percentage between groups. Time‐to‐wound healing pain score during dressing change and cost of treatment were compared between both groups. Time‐to‐wound closure was significantly shorter in the Aquacel Ag‐treated group (10 ± 3 versus 13.7 ± 4 days, P < 0·02) as well as pain scores at days 1, 3 and 7 (4·1 ± 2·1, 2·1 ± 1·8, 0·9 ± 1·4 versus 6·1 ± 2·3, 5·2 ± 2·1, 3·3 ± 1·9, respectively, P < 0·02). Total cost of treatment was 52 ± 29 US dollars for the Aquacel Ag‐treated group versus 93 ± 36 US dollars for the silver sulfadiazine‐treated group. This study showed that Aquacel Ag increased time to healing, decreased pain symptoms and increased patient convenience because of limiting the frequency of replacement of the dressing at lower total cost. This study confirms the efficacy of Aquacel Ag for the treatment of partial thickness burns at an outpatient clinic.

An economic evaluation of bupivacaine plus fentanyl versus ropivacaine alone for patient-controlled epidural analgesia after total-knee replacement procedure: a double-blinded randomized study.

Background and Objectives Total-knee replacement (TKR) surgery is one of the most painful orthopedic procedures after surgery. Opioid has been commonly combined with a local anesthetic to improve the quality of pain relief, but the treatment has opioid-related side effects. This study compared the cost effectiveness of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with 0.0625% bupivacaine plus fentanyl (BF) 3 μg/mL versus 0.15% ropivacaine alone (R) during the first 48 hours after TKR procedure. Methods This prospective randomized double-blined study was performed on 70 patients who underwent unilateral TKR procedure and received either BF or R after surgery. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at rest and upon movement, side effects, and cost of treatment were compared. Results Overall pain at rest and upon movement between groups was not significantly different (P = 0.58, 95% CI = 4.4 to −7.8 and P = 0.8, 95% CI = 6.4 to −8.2, respectively). Patients in the BF group experienced more pruritus and had more vomiting episodes than those in the R group (P = .015), whereas no difference occurred in other side effects. Nevertheless, patient satisfaction with pain management was higher in the BF group compared with that in the R group. In addition, pain treatment with bupivacaine and fentanyl was 18% less costly compared with ropivacaine alone. Conclusions Considering the economic evaluation, we conclude that PCEA with 0.0625% bupivacaine plus fentanyl 3 μg/mL is more cost effective and provides more patient satisfaction than PCEA with ropivacaine alone. However, use of epidural ropivacaine alone causes fewer opioid-related side effects, particularly pruritus and vomiting.

Lidocaine for reducing propofol-induced pain on induction of anaesthesia in adults

BACKGROUNDnPain on propofol injection is an untoward effect and this condition can reduce patient satisfaction. Intravenous lidocaine injection has been commonly used to attenuate pain on propofol injection. Although many studies have reported that lidocaine was effective in reducing the incidence and severity of pain, nevertheless, no systematic review focusing on lidocaine for preventing high-intensity pain has been published.nnnOBJECTIVESnThe objective of this review was to determine the efficacy and adverse effects of lidocaine in preventing high-intensity pain on propofol injection.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 To October 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1988 to October 2014), LILACS (1992 to October 2014) and searched reference lists of articles.We reran the search in November 2015. We found 11potential studies of interest, those studies were added to the list of Studies awaiting classification and will be fully incorporated into the formal review findings when we update the review.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intravenous lidocaine injection as an intervention to decrease pain on propofol injection in adults. We excluded studies without a placebo or control group.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnWe collected selected studies with relevant criteria. We identified risk of bias in five domains according to the following criteria: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, adequacy of blinding, completeness of outcome data and selective reporting. We performed meta-analysis by direct comparisons of intervention versus control. We estimated the summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals using the random-effects Mantel-Haenszel method in RevMan 5.3. We used the I(2) statistic to assess statistical heterogeneity. We assessed overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe included 87 studies, 84 of which (10,460 participants) were eligible for quantitative analysis in the review. All participants, aged 13 years to 89 years, were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients undergoing elective surgery. Each study was conducted in a single centre in high- , middle- and low-income countries worldwide. According to the risk of bias assessment, all except five studies were identified as being of satisfactory methodological quality, allowing 84 studies to be combined in the meta-analysis. Five of the 84 studies were assessed as high risk of bias: one for participant and personnel blinding, one for incomplete outcome data, and three for other potential sources of bias.The overall incidence of pain and high-intensity pain following propofol injection in the control group were 64% (95% CI 60% to 67.9%) and 38.1% (95% CI 33.4% to 43.1%), respectively while those in the lidocaine group were 30.2% (95% CI 26.7% to 33.7%) and 11.8% (95% CI 9.7% to 13.8%). Both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection (lidocaine admixture OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.25, 31 studies, 4927 participants, high-quality evidence; lidocaine pretreatment OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18, 43 RCTs, 4028 participants, high-quality evidence). Similarly, lidocaine administration could considerably decrease the incidence of pain when premixed with the propofol (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.24, 36 studies, 5628 participants, high-quality evidence) or pretreated prior to propofol injection (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.18, 52 studies, 4832 participants, high-quality evidence). Adverse effects of lidocaine administration were rare. Thrombophlebitis was reported in only two studies (OR not estimated, low-quality evidence). No studies reported patient satisfaction.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnOverall, the quality of the evidence was high. Currently available data from RCTs are sufficient to confirm that both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection. Furthermore, there were no significant differences of effect between the two techniques.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Hypoxemia During Interventional Rigid Bronchoscopy Under Spontaneous-assisted Ventilation.

Background: Interventional rigid bronchoscopy for tracheobronchial stenosis can be performed under total intravenous anesthesia and spontaneous-assisted ventilation. Intraoperative hypoxemia can occur during this procedure, but the incidence and risk factors have not yet been determined. Methods: Medical records of patients who underwent rigid bronchoscopy for the treatment of tracheobronchial stenosis under total intravenous anesthesia and spontaneous-assisted ventilation during the study period from January 2011 to December 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Results: There were 126 patients who underwent 263 procedures. The 2 main causes of tracheobronchial stenosis were tuberculosis (41.3%) and malignancy (35.7%). The 2 main locations of stenotic area were the trachea (58.6%) and the left main bronchus (46.4%). Tracheobronchial dilatation and stent insertion were performed in 78.7% and 21.3% of patients, respectively. The incidence of intraoperative hypoxemia was 25.5%. Independent risk factors for intraoperative hypoxemia were a degree of tracheal stenosis ≥75% (odds ratio: 2.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-5.17) and tumor removal procedure (odds ratio: 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-7.41). Conclusions: Incidence of intraoperative hypoxemia during interventional rigid bronchoscopy for tracheobronchial stenosis under spontaneous-assisted ventilation was 25.5%. Risk factors for hypoxemia were a degree of tracheal stenosis ≥75% and tumor removal procedure.