Comparison of effects of preoperatively administered lornoxicam and tenoxicam on morphine consumption after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background and objective: The efficacy, tolerability and the morphine-sparing effects of lornoxicam were compared with those of tenoxicam when used preoperatively in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: In this prospective, double-blind study, 60 ASA I-II patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized equally to receive intravenous tenoxicam 40 mg (Group T) or lornoxicam 16 mg (Group L), preemptively. Three patients withdrew from the study, so 57 patients were included in the analysis. In the postoperative period, the first morphine demand times, pain scores, side-effects and cumulative morphine consumptions were evaluated during the first 24h. Results: The patient characteristics data and the duration of surgery were similar between two groups, except for body weights (P = 0.002). The first morphine demand time was significantly longer in Group L (P = 0.037), but the pain levels did not differ. The mean pain scores were higher in Group T in the 15 min (P = 0.036), 1 h (P = 0.020), 2 h (P = 0.001) and 4 h (P = 0.0042) after extubation. A statistically significant difference between two groups was found in calculated cumulative morphine consumptions per kilogram in the 15 min (P = 0.037), 30 min (P = 0.016), and 1 h (P = 0.004) and 2 h (P = 0.013) between two groups. There was no difference in the severity of nausea but 13 patients in Group T and five patients in Group L had vomiting (P = 0.018). Patient satisfaction was similar in the two groups. Conclusions: Preoperatively administered lornoxicam 16 mg significantly prolonged the first morphine demand time, reduced postoperative morphine consumption during the first 4 h and caused significantly fewer adverse effects when compared with tenoxicam after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Comparison of remifentanil and fentanyl in anaesthesia for elective cardioversion.

This prospective, randomized, double-blind study was designed to compare the recovery characteristics of remifentanil and fentanyl in combination with propofol for direct current cardioversion. Patients undergoing elective cardioversion received either intravenous fentanyl 1 mu g/kg (n=33) or remifentanil 0.25 mu g/kg (n=30) and propofol was titrated to a Ramsay sedation score of 5 by slow intravenous injection. Heart rate, systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressures decreased significantly following sedation in both groups but did not show a significant difference between the groups. Time to answer a question (306 +/- 83 vs 383 +/- 131s, mean +/- SD, P=0.014) and time to sit up (412 +/- 90 vs 511 +/- 126s, P=0.002) were significantly shorter in the remifentanil group compared to the fentanyl group. Side-effects and patient discomfort were similar for both groups. Remifentanil can be used as a suitable supplement to propofol for direct current cardioversion and may provide a faster recovery profile than fentanyl