Loading…

Effect of applying cold gel pack on reduction of postoperative pain in cesarean section, low midline skin incision: A randomized controlled trial

Aim The present study aims to investigate the efficacy of cryotherapy in pain reduction following low midline cesarean section. Methods This randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand from December 2019 to Februar...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research 2021-08, Vol.47 (8), p.2653-2658
Main Authors: Suwannalert, Pawitra, Chanthasenanont, Athita, Pongrojpaw, Densak
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aim The present study aims to investigate the efficacy of cryotherapy in pain reduction following low midline cesarean section. Methods This randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand from December 2019 to February 2020. Participants were term pregnant women who were indicated for low midline cesarean section. The control group received standard postoperative care while cold pack was applied to the intervention group for 6 h after the operation. The primary outcome was the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score in both the control and intervention groups. The secondary outcomes consisted of the amount of intravenous pain reliever each participant required and the length of hospital stay. Results All 100 pregnant women were recruited into the study. They were equally allocated into intervention or control groups. Both groups underwent cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. The demographic characteristics of both groups were comparable. VAS of intervention and control group were 3.2 ± 2.4 versus 5.3 ± 2.2, 3.0 ± 2.4 versus 5.6 ± 2.0, 2.0 ± 2.3 versus 5.3 ± 2.2, and 1.1 ± 1.7 versus 4.8 ± 2.4 at 6, 8, 12, and 24 h postoperatively (p‐value
ISSN:1341-8076
1447-0756
DOI:10.1111/jog.14855