Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (22)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by BUGGY, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by CARTON, E. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by BUGGY, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by CARTON, E. G.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 1994, Vol. 73, No. 6 767-770
© 1994 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia


research-article

Preoperative or postoperative diclofenac for laparoscopic tuballigation

D. J. BUGGY, MSC, MRCPI, DME, C. WALL, FFARCSI and E. G. CARTON, MD, MRCPI, FFARCSI

Department of Anaesthesia, Rotunda Hospital Dublin, Ireland

We have compared the analgesic effects of diclofenac given before operation or immediately after operation in a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study of 40 healthy female patients under going laparoscopic tuballigation. Group 1 patients received diclofenac 75 mg as a 3-ml i.m. injection 1–2 h before operation and normal saline 3 ml i.m. immediately after surgery. Group 2 patients received normal saline 3 ml i.m. before operation and diclofenac 75 mg i.m. immediately after surgery. Outcome measures were patients' perception of pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS), verbal response scale (VRS), the number of patients who required postoperative morphine, time to first post-operative morphine injection and total dose of morphine given. VAS at 30 mm and at 1, 3 and 6 h after operation were, respectively (median, interquartile range) 4.5 (2.3–6.0) vs 5.3 (2.8–7.8); 3.3 (2.3–5.0) vs 4.4 (3.0–5.8); 1.4 (0–2.3) vs 1.9 (0.8–3.0); 0.5 (0–1) vs 0.7 (0–1.3), (ns). VRS at 1 and 3 h after operation were, respectively, (median, interquartile range) 2.2 (1.5–3.0) vs 2.7 (2.0–4.0) and 0.8 (0–1.3) vs 0.9 (0–1.5) (ns). Sixteen patients in group 1 compared with 17 in group 2 required postoperative morphine. Time to first morphine administration and dose given were, respectively, (median, interquartile range) 50.6 (39–60) min vs 35.7 (20–49) min (P = 0.1) and 9.0 (5–10) mg vs 9.5 (7.5–10) (P – 0.9). We conclude that in patients presenting for laparoscopic tubal ligation, preoperative administration of diclofenac 75 mg i.m. conferred no additional analgesic benefit compared with a similar dose given after operation.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
G. L. Rasmussen, K. Malmstrom, M. H. Bourne, M. Jove, S. M. Rhondeau, P. Kotey, J. Ang, M. Aversano, A. S. Reicin, and for the Etoricoxib Postorthopedic Study Group
Etoricoxib Provides Analgesic Efficacy to Patients After Knee or Hip Replacement Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study
Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2005; 101(4): 1104 - 1111.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br J AnaesthHome page
G. Boccara, A. Chaumeron, Y. Pouzeratte, and C. Mann
The preoperative administration of ketoprofen improves analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in comparison with propacetamol or postoperative ketoprofen
Br. J. Anaesth., March 1, 2005; 94(3): 347 - 351.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
C. K.-S. Ong, P. Lirk, R. A. Seymour, and B. J. Jenkins
The Efficacy of Preemptive Analgesia for Acute Postoperative Pain Management: A Meta-Analysis
Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2005; 100(3): 757 - 773.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.