This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Drakeford, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ebert, F
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Drakeford, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ebert, F
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 73, Issue 3 424-428, Copyright © 1991 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc

JOURNAL CONTENTS

Spinal narcotics for postoperative analgesia in total joint arthroplasty. A prospective study

MK Drakeford, KA Pettine, L Brookshire and F Ebert
Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon.

Sixty patients who were scheduled to have an elective total hip or knee arthroplasty were randomly assigned to one of three groups of twenty patients each before operation with spinal anesthesia. A double-blind technique was used throughout the study. The patients in Group I (control group) received hyperbaric 1 per cent tetracaine with epinephrine as the subarachnoid spinal anesthetic; the patients in Group II (morphine group), hyperbaric 1 per cent tetracaine with epinephrine and a single subarachnoid dose of Duramorph (morphine sulphate), 0.5 milligram; and those in Group III (Dilaudid group), hyperbaric 1 per cent tetracaine with epinephrine and a single subarachnoid dose of Dilaudid (hydromorphone hydrochloride), 0.002 milligram per kilogram of body weight. During the first twenty-four hours after the operation, the patients in Group II and Group III had significantly less pain compared with those in Group I. This was shown by the use of a visual linear-analog pain scale (p less than 0.05), the patients' ratings of the quality of relief of pain (p less than 0.02), and comparative measurements of the pain-altering medications that were used (p less than 0.05). The patients in Group II and Group III did not have any more complications or side effects than those in Group I. There was no significant difference in the quality and duration of analgesia between Group II and Group III.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
J. P. Rathmell, T. R. Lair, and B. Nauman
The Role of Intrathecal Drugs in the Treatment of Acute Pain
Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2005; 101(5S_Suppl): S30 - 43.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
S. Ko, D. H. Goldstein, and E. G. VanDenKerkhof
Definitions of "respiratory depression" with intrathecal morphine postoperative analgesia: a review of the literature: [Definitions de la "depression respiratoire" de l'analgesie postoperatoire realisee avec de la morphine intrathecale : une revue documentaire]
Can J Anesth, August 1, 2003; 50(7): 679 - 688.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
C. Boucher, M. Girard, P. Drolet, Y. Grenier, L. Bergeron, and H. H. Le Truong
Intrathecal fentanyl does not modify the duration of spinal procaine block
Can J Anesth, May 1, 2001; 48(5): 466 - 469.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]