Hamidreza Shetabi; hossein Mahjoubipour; mona bahmani
Volume 12, Issue 1 , January 2024, , Pages 1-7
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess and compare the effects of intranasal administration of lidocaine andremifentanil on the condition of LMA insertion and cardiovascular response.Methods: From March 2019 to March 2020, this double-blind randomized clinical trial study was conductedon 60 patients, ...
Read More
Objective: This study aimed to assess and compare the effects of intranasal administration of lidocaine andremifentanil on the condition of LMA insertion and cardiovascular response.Methods: From March 2019 to March 2020, this double-blind randomized clinical trial study was conductedon 60 patients, who underwent general anesthesia with LMA insertion at Faiz Hospital, Isfahan, Iran. Afterinduction of anesthesia and before placing the laryngeal mask, the first group received remifentanil 1 μg/Kg,the second group received lidocaine 2% 1 mg/Kg, and the third group received normal saline with the samevolume intranasally. The conditions of LMA insertion and hemodynamic changes that occurred during itsinsertion were investigated.Results: In terms of demographics characteristics (p>0.05), success in placing the LMA on the first try(p=0.73), number of attempts to insert LMA (p=0.61), performance of LMA (p=0.73), need for additionalpropofol (p=0.53), frequency of gagging (p=0.53), cough (p=0.15) p), and laryngospasm (p=0.99) did notdiffer significantly. In the remifentanil group, the cardiovascular response to LMA injection was less than thatof the lidocaine group. Moreover, both groups were lower than the saline group, but no significant differencewas observedConclusion: In facilitating LMA insertion, the effect of intranasal remifentanil was comparable to intranasallidocaine. Intranasal remifentanil was somewhat more effective than intranasal lidocaine in weakening thecardiovascular response to LMA insertion, but it did not outperform lidocaine.
Rasoul Salimi; Rasool Haddadi; Abbas Moradi; Farnoush Jalilvand; Farzin Firozian
Volume 7, Issue 3 , July 2019, , Pages 240-244
Abstract
Objective: To compare the anesthetic effects of topical amitriptyline 2% with lidocaine 2% in isolated limb wound repair with suturing.Methods: In a randomized clinical trial, 90 patients with a complaint of isolated ulcer and require a preliminary repair by suturing were selected from patients referred ...
Read More
Objective: To compare the anesthetic effects of topical amitriptyline 2% with lidocaine 2% in isolated limb wound repair with suturing.Methods: In a randomized clinical trial, 90 patients with a complaint of isolated ulcer and require a preliminary repair by suturing were selected from patients referred to emergency department of Beast Hospital in Hamadan. First, the scars were washed and anesthetized with lidocaine 2%. If after the peak period effect of lidocaine, the pain score of patients did not decrease, they randomly assigned to two groups, Lidocaine or Amitriptyline gel. After the intervention and during the suturing, the patient's pain score was measured at the intervals specified time by the visual analogous scale (VAS) and results recorded on the checklist. Finally, the collected data were analyzed by SPSS software version 20 at 95% confidence levelResults: In the lidocaine and amitriptyline group, the mean age of the patients was 29.08 and 27.34 years, and male gender frequency was 71.1% and 80% respectively. Both groups were matched for age and sex. Mean score of pain in both groups decreased from the score of 10 before the intervention to 7.33 in the lidocaine group and 0.53 in amitriptyline group. Based on the results of the ANOVA repeated measure test, there was a statistically significant difference between the mean score of pain in the two groups (p<0.001).Conclusion: In patients with isolated limbs ulcers, requiring initial repair with suturing, numbness and analgesia effect of amitriptyline 2% gel, with dose 2 mg/kg is better than lidocaine 2%. Clinical Trial Registry: IRCT20120215009014N216
