Avaliação da Analgesia Após Cesariana

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ribeiro, I
Data de Publicação: 2001
Outros Autores: Nunes, F, Ghira, M
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/441
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of post-caesarean analgesia comparing three techniques most frequently used. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For three months all pregnant women submitted to elective or urgent caesarean section, under general or regional anaesthesia, were evaluate with a total of 129 parturient. These parturient were divided into three groups with different techniques of postoperative analgesia: Group 1 (n = 26) received intravenous pethidine and paracetamol per os, group 2 (n = 58) received epidural morphine and group 3 (n = 45) epidural morphine and intravenous propacetamol. Pain was assessed at rest and during mobilisation using a scale of 0-without pain, 1-mild pain, 2-moderate pain and 3-severe pain. Overall satisfaction was assessed with a verbal qualitative scale of very good, good, sufficient and bad. Side effects were analysed. RESULTS: The records of pain at rest and during mobilisation were significantly lower with epidural analgesia compared with intravenous pethidine. There were no significant differences between groups 2 and 3. Similar results were observed in the degree of satisfaction. For 50% of parturient of epidural analgesia (groups 2 and 3) and only 4% of intravenous pethidine (group 1) the analgesic technique was very good. Propacetamol and epidural morphine (group 3) had better pain scores (very good and good) when compared with morphine alone (group 2) but there were no significant differences. Epidural morphine was associated with more pruritus. CONCLUSION: From this study we are able to conclude that epidural morphine offers a good quality of analgesia with better satisfaction and minimal side effects.
id RCAP_d519e64cac0229028064ce36fbfcbdd7
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.chlc.pt:10400.17/441
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Avaliação da Analgesia Após CesarianaEvaluation of Analgesia After Cesarean SectionAnalgesiaAnalgésicosCesarianaDor Pós-OperatóriaGravidezOBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of post-caesarean analgesia comparing three techniques most frequently used. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For three months all pregnant women submitted to elective or urgent caesarean section, under general or regional anaesthesia, were evaluate with a total of 129 parturient. These parturient were divided into three groups with different techniques of postoperative analgesia: Group 1 (n = 26) received intravenous pethidine and paracetamol per os, group 2 (n = 58) received epidural morphine and group 3 (n = 45) epidural morphine and intravenous propacetamol. Pain was assessed at rest and during mobilisation using a scale of 0-without pain, 1-mild pain, 2-moderate pain and 3-severe pain. Overall satisfaction was assessed with a verbal qualitative scale of very good, good, sufficient and bad. Side effects were analysed. RESULTS: The records of pain at rest and during mobilisation were significantly lower with epidural analgesia compared with intravenous pethidine. There were no significant differences between groups 2 and 3. Similar results were observed in the degree of satisfaction. For 50% of parturient of epidural analgesia (groups 2 and 3) and only 4% of intravenous pethidine (group 1) the analgesic technique was very good. Propacetamol and epidural morphine (group 3) had better pain scores (very good and good) when compared with morphine alone (group 2) but there were no significant differences. Epidural morphine was associated with more pruritus. CONCLUSION: From this study we are able to conclude that epidural morphine offers a good quality of analgesia with better satisfaction and minimal side effects.Centro Editor e Livreiro da Ordem dos MédicosRepositório do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Central, EPERibeiro, INunes, FGhira, M2011-10-21T15:21:05Z20012001-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/441porActa Med Port. 2001 Jul-Aug;14(4):395-8info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2024-10-28T10:25:01Zoai:repositorio.chlc.pt:10400.17/441Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openairemluisa.alvim@gmail.comopendoar:71602024-10-28T10:25:01Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Avaliação da Analgesia Após Cesariana
Evaluation of Analgesia After Cesarean Section
title Avaliação da Analgesia Após Cesariana
spellingShingle Avaliação da Analgesia Após Cesariana
Ribeiro, I
Analgesia
Analgésicos
Cesariana
Dor Pós-Operatória
Gravidez
title_short Avaliação da Analgesia Após Cesariana
title_full Avaliação da Analgesia Após Cesariana
title_fullStr Avaliação da Analgesia Após Cesariana
title_full_unstemmed Avaliação da Analgesia Após Cesariana
title_sort Avaliação da Analgesia Após Cesariana
author Ribeiro, I
author_facet Ribeiro, I
Nunes, F
Ghira, M
author_role author
author2 Nunes, F
Ghira, M
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Central, EPE
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ribeiro, I
Nunes, F
Ghira, M
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Analgesia
Analgésicos
Cesariana
Dor Pós-Operatória
Gravidez
topic Analgesia
Analgésicos
Cesariana
Dor Pós-Operatória
Gravidez
description OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of post-caesarean analgesia comparing three techniques most frequently used. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For three months all pregnant women submitted to elective or urgent caesarean section, under general or regional anaesthesia, were evaluate with a total of 129 parturient. These parturient were divided into three groups with different techniques of postoperative analgesia: Group 1 (n = 26) received intravenous pethidine and paracetamol per os, group 2 (n = 58) received epidural morphine and group 3 (n = 45) epidural morphine and intravenous propacetamol. Pain was assessed at rest and during mobilisation using a scale of 0-without pain, 1-mild pain, 2-moderate pain and 3-severe pain. Overall satisfaction was assessed with a verbal qualitative scale of very good, good, sufficient and bad. Side effects were analysed. RESULTS: The records of pain at rest and during mobilisation were significantly lower with epidural analgesia compared with intravenous pethidine. There were no significant differences between groups 2 and 3. Similar results were observed in the degree of satisfaction. For 50% of parturient of epidural analgesia (groups 2 and 3) and only 4% of intravenous pethidine (group 1) the analgesic technique was very good. Propacetamol and epidural morphine (group 3) had better pain scores (very good and good) when compared with morphine alone (group 2) but there were no significant differences. Epidural morphine was associated with more pruritus. CONCLUSION: From this study we are able to conclude that epidural morphine offers a good quality of analgesia with better satisfaction and minimal side effects.
publishDate 2001
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2001
2001-01-01T00:00:00Z
2011-10-21T15:21:05Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/441
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/441
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Acta Med Port. 2001 Jul-Aug;14(4):395-8
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Centro Editor e Livreiro da Ordem dos Médicos
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Centro Editor e Livreiro da Ordem dos Médicos
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mluisa.alvim@gmail.com
_version_ 1817548631991910400