Yazar "Süt, N" seçeneğine göre listele
Listeleniyor 1 - 7 / 7
Sayfa Başına Sonuç
Sıralama seçenekleri
Öğe Caudal neostigmine for postoperative analgesia in paediatric surgery(Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003) Memis, D; Turan, A; Karamanlioglu, B; Kaya, G; Süt, N; Pamukçu, ZBackground: This study was conducted to evaluate analgesia and side-effects of caudal neostigmine coadministered with bupivacaine in paediatric surgery. Methods: We studied children, aged 1-5 years, undergoing elective surgery (inguinal hernia and hypospadias). After standard induction of anaesthesia, caudal anaesthesia was performed. Group 1 received 0.25% bupivacaine 0.5 ml.kg(-1) and Group 2 received 0.25% bupivacaine 0.5 ml.kg(-1) with 1 mug.kg(-1) neostigmine via the caudal route. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure, peripheral oxygen saturation were recorded before induction, after induction but before caudal anaesthesia, and then every 5 min after caudal anaesthesia. Haemodynamic, Toddler, Preschooler, Postoperative Pain Scale (TPPPS) pain score and sedation score values were recorded 30 min after extubation and at hours 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24. A pain score >3/10 resulted in administration of rectal paracetamol. The duration of postoperative analgesia was defined as the time between caudal drug injection and the first rectal paracetamol administration. Results: There were no differences between the groups in demographic and haemodynamic date, duration of surgery and anaesthesia, time to extubation or sedation scores. The duration of postoperative pain relief did not differ between the two groups; 15.40 +/- 10.97 h for group 1 vs. 15.45 +/- 10.99 h for group 2 (P > 0.05). The incidence of nausea (three patients in group 2 and one patient in group 1) was not statistically significant. No other side-effects were seen. Conclusions: We found that a single caudal injection of 1 mug.kg(-1) neostigmine mixed with bupivacaine offers no significant advantage over bupivacaine alone for postoperative pain relief in children undergoing genitourinary surgery.Öğe Caudal ropivacaine and neostiginine in pediatric surgery(Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2003) Turan, A; Memis, D; Basaran, ÜN; Karamanlioglu, B; Süt, NBackground: Neostigmine has been added to local anesthetics for different nerve blocks. This study was conducted to evaluate effects of neostigmine when added to ropivacaine for caudal anesthesia. Methods: We studied children, aged 1-5 yr, undergoing inguinal hernia and hypospadias surgery. After standard induction of anesthesia, Group I received 0.2% ropivacaine 0.5 ml/kg and Group II received 0.2% ropivacaine 0.5 ml/kg with 2 ml/kg neostigmine via the caudal route. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and pulse oximetry were recorded before induction, after induction, and then every 10 min after caudal anesthesia. Hemodynamic, Toddler-Preschooler Postoperative Pain Scale pain score, and sedation score values were recorded 30 min after extubation and at hours 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24. A pain score greater than 3/10 resulted in administration of rectal paracetamol. Results: There were no differences between the groups in demographic and hemodynamic data, duration of surgery and anesthesia, time to extubation, or sedation scores. The pain scores were significantly lower in Group II at 6 and 12 h (P < 0.05). Time to first analgesic requirement was statistically prolonged in Group II (19.2 +/- 5.5h) when compared with Group 1 (7.1 +/- 5.7 h) (P < 0.05). Total analgesic consumption was statistically larger in Group I (174 +/- 96 mg) when compared with Group II (80 +/- 85.5 mg) (P < 0.05). The incidence of vomiting (3 patients in Group II and 1 patient in Group I) was not statistically significantly different. Conclusions: The authors found that a single caudal injection of neostigmine when added to ropivacaine offers an advantage over ropivacaine alone for postoperative pain relief in children undergoing genitourinary surgery.Öğe Comparison of oral dolasetron and ondansetron in the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children(Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2003) Karamanlioglu, B; Turan, A; Memis, D; Süt, NBackground and objective: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, we compared the efficacy of oral dolasetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in children after various surgical operations. Methods: Children were assigned randomly to one of three groups (each contained 50 children) to receive dolasetron 1.8 mg kg(-1) or ondansetron 0.15 mg kg(-1) orally, or a placebo. All children received methylene blue capsules (10 mg) orally as an indicator before the induction of anaesthesia. Postoperatively, contamination of the mouth and the endotracheal tube by methylene blue was recorded, and postoperative nausea and vomiting was recorded for 0-1, 1-24 and 0-24 h. Metoclopramide (0.1 mg kg(-1)) intravenously was used as the rescue antiemetic. Results: In the 0-1 h period after operation, there were no differences between the groups. In the 1-24 h period, dolasetron was significantly better than placebo (nausea 8 versus 24%; vomiting 4 versus 2096; total nausea and vomiting scores 16 versus 48176). Over the 0-24 h period, both dolasetron and ondansetron were significantly better than placebo (nausea 16 versus 26 versus 4096), vomiting (8 versus 16 versus 30%), and total nausea and vomiting scores (32 versus 48 versus 78%). There were no significant differences between dolasetron and ondansetron. There was no important methylene blue contamination, and little use of rescue metoclopramide. There were no important adverse events. Conclusions: Prophylactic oral dolasetron and ondansetron were effective in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting in children.Öğe Effect of aminophylline on bispectral index(Wiley, 2004) Turan, A; Memis, D; Karamanlioglu, B; Pamukçu, Z; Süt, NBackground: The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of aminophylline on BIS as well as clinical recovery in patients anesthetized with sevoflurane. Methods: Sixty patients with status of ASA I-II scheduled for elective surgery were enrolled in this study. Anesthesia was induced by 2 mg kg(-1) of propofol and 0.5 mg kg(-1) of atracurium, maintained with 1:1 ratio of oxygen and nitrous oxide and 2-2.5% sevoflurane, keeping BIS values at 50 +/- 5. During the last 30 min of the operation no muscle relaxant was given and anesthesia was continued without decreasing anesthetic concentration. After sevoflurane discontinuation, saline was given to Group P, and 5 mg kg(-1) of aminophylline was given to Group A. Bispectral index values, heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation were determined in all the patients before and every min after injection of the test drug for 15 min. The following variables were measured in both groups: eye opening, extubation time, response to command, Aldrete scores, and performing three simple arithmetic calculations. Results: Between groups there was no statistically significant difference in mean arterial blood pressure, SPO2 and anesthesia time. Heart rate was found to be statistically higher (P < 0.001) at 2 to 6 min in Group A when compared with group P. Eye opening, verbal response, extubation and arithmetic calculation times were significantly shorter (P < 0.001) in Group A. Bispectral index scores were significantly higher in Group A at 1 to 12 min after aminophylline injection when compared with placebo (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Recovery from sevoflurane anesthesia and BIS scores are improved in early period when aminophylline is given at emerging from anesthesia.Öğe Preoperative oral celecoxib versus preoperative oral rofecoxib for pain relief after thyroid surgery(Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2003) Karamanlioglu, B; Arar, C; Alagöl, A; Çolak, A; Gemlik, I; Süt, NBackground and objective: The study compared the analgesic efficacy and safety of two preoperatively administered cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors, celecoxib and rofecoxib. Methods: Ninety adult patients undergoing thyroid surgery were divided into three groups (each n = 30). They were given a single oral dose of placebo, celecoxib 200 mg or rofecoxib 5 0 mg 1 h before induction of anaesthesia. All patients received a standard anaesthetic. Intraoperative blood loss was measured. Pain scores, sedation scores, heart rate, mean arterial pressure and respiratory rate were noted at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24 h postoperatively. Analgesic (meperidine) requirements and adverse effects were recorded during the first postoperative 24 h. Results: Compared with placebo, pain scores were significantly lower with rofecoxib at all time points (P < 0.05) and were significantly lower with celecoxib (P < 0.05) during the first 4 h. Pain scores were significantly lower with rofecoxib compared with celecoxib at 6, 12 and 24 h (P < 0.05). The average cumulative 24 h meperidine dose was significantly lower with both celecoxib (54.9 +/- 34.4 mg) and rofecoxib (42.8 +/- 40.9 mg) compared with placebo (76.8 +/- 6.2 mg) (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively). There were no differences in the intraoperative blood loss, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, sedation scores and incidence of adverse effects among groups. Conclusions: The preoperative administration of rofecoxib 50 mg and less so of celecoxib 200 mg provide a significant analgesic benefit with regard to postoperative pain relief and decrease in additional opioid requirements after thyroid surgery.Öğe The prevention of pain from injection of rocuronium by ondansetron, lidocaine, tramadol, and fentanyl(Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2002) Memis, D; Turan, A; Karamanlioglu, B; Süt, N; Pamukçu, ZWe compared the efficacy of ondansetron, lidocame, tramadol, and fentanyl in minimizing pain caused by the injection of rocuronium in 250 patients. After tourniquet application on the forearm, the patients were given saline (3 mL) (Group 1, n = 50), ondansetron (4 mg) (Group 2, n = 50), lidocaine (30 mg) (Group 3, n = 50), tramadol (50 mg) (Group 4, n = 50), or fentanyl (100 mug) (Group 5, n = 50) diluted into a 3-mL solution. The occlusion was released after 20 s and rocuronium was injected over 10-15 s. The patients were observed and asked immediately if they had pain in the arm, and the response was assessed. Reactions such as discomfort and pain, withdrawal of the hand, and so on after the administration of rocuronium were recorded as side effects for 24 h. Ten patients in Group 1, 28 patients in Group 2, 37 patients in Group 3, 30 patients in Group 4, and 15 patients in Group 5 reported no pain. Light pain was seen in 11 patients in Group 1, 14 patients in Group 2, 11 patients in Group 3,12 patients in Group 4, and 20 patients in Group 5. Moderate pain was seen in 15 patients in Group 1, 6 patients in Group 2, 2 patients in Group 3, 8 patients in Group 4, and 10 patients in Group 5. Severe pain was seen in 14 patients in Group 1, 2 patients in Group 2, 0 patients in Group 3, 0 patients in Group 4, and 5 patients in Group 5. Correlation determined with log-linear analysis found in Group I pain score 0 (P < 0.001), Group 1 pain score 1 (P < 0.001), and Group 3 pain score 0 (P < 0.001). We conclude that ondansetron, lidocaine, tramadol, and fentanyl decrease the level of rocuronium injection pain. Among these drugs, lidocame is the most effective, whereas fentanyl is the least effective.Öğe The use of magnesium sulfate to prevent pain on injection of propofol(Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2002) Memis, D; Turan, A; Karamanlioglu, B; Süt, N; Pamukçu, Z[Abstract Not Available]
