Loading…

Comparison of Local Anesthetic Effects of Tramadol With Prilocaine During Circumcision Procedure

Objectives To compare the local anesthetic effects of tramadol hydrochloride with prilocaine for circumcision procedure. Methods This study included 40 patients with American Surgical Association-I scores. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either 5% tramadol (2 mg/kg) plus adrenaline (0.01...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2010-03, Vol.75 (3), p.672-675
Main Authors: Kargı, Eksal, Işıkdemir, Ahmet, Tokgöz, Hüsnü, Erol, Bülent, Işıkdemir, Fulden, Hancı, Volkan, Payaslı, Cem
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives To compare the local anesthetic effects of tramadol hydrochloride with prilocaine for circumcision procedure. Methods This study included 40 patients with American Surgical Association-I scores. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either 5% tramadol (2 mg/kg) plus adrenaline (0.0125/mL) (group 1, n = 20) or 2% prilocaine plus adrenaline (0.0125/mL) (group 2, n = 20). The degree of burning sensation and pain at the injection site were documented. Sensory block was assessed 1 minute after injection and the patients were asked to grade touch and pinprick sensation. Five minutes after drug administration, incision was performed and intensity of pain, felt by the patient was evaluated on a 4-point scale (0-3). Pain at the injection site and local skin reactions were also recorded. Results Mean ages were 9.7 and 10.3 years for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Mean duration of surgery was 19.6 minutes. In control visit, 2 of 20 (10%) in group 1 and 10 of 20 (50%) children in group 2 reported extra need for oral ibuprofen ( P .05). Total postoperative ibuprofen consumptions were 10 and 50 mg for groups 1 and 2, respectively ( P
ISSN:0090-4295
1527-9995
DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.108