PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-7 (7)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy of tenoxicam and diclofenac sodium after third molar surgery. 
Anesthesia Progress  1996;43(4):103-107.
Tenoxicam and diclofenac sodium were compared with each other for analgesic efficacy following removal of third molars under general anesthesia. Thirty-five healthy patients between the ages of 18 and 28 yr were randomly allocated to two groups to participate in this study. Patients in Group A (n = 17) received a single intravenous injection of tenoxicam 40 mg at induction of anesthesia, followed by a 20-mg tablet given in the evening of the day of the operation and thereafter, one 20-mg tablet daily from days 2 to 7. Group B (n = 18) received a single intramuscular injection of diclofenac sodium 75 mg at induction of anesthesia, followed by a 50-mg tablet 4 to 6 hr after the operation and again, between 2100 hr and 2200 hr the same day. Thereafter, a 50-mg tablet was taken 3 times daily for the next 6 days. Pain was measured hourly for the first 4 hr postoperatively, then at 21 hr, and thereafter in the morning and the evenings on days 2 to 7. The highest pain scores were obtained 1 hr postoperatively for both trial groups. At 1 and 2 hr postoperatively, no statistical significant differences in pain scores could be shown for both groups. However, at 3 and 4 hr postoperatively, patients in the tenoxicam group experienced significantly (P < or = 0.05) less pain than those in the diclofenac sodium group. On the evening of the third postoperative day, the tenoxicam group of patients experienced significantly less pain (P < or = 0.05) than those in the diclofenac sodium group. This was again the case on the morning of the fourth postoperative day. On the fifth, sixth, and seventh postoperative days, the average pain scores for patients in the tenoxicam group were statistically significantly lower, both mornings and evenings, than those in the diclofenac sodium group of patients (P = 0.05).
PMCID: PMC2148775  PMID: 10323115
2.  Prolonged diplopia following a mandibular block injection. 
Anesthesia Progress  1996;43(4):116-117.
A case is presented in which a 14-yr-old girl developed diplopia after injection of the local anesthetic Xylotox E 80 A (2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine). Since the complication had a relatively slow onset and lasted for 24 hr, the commonly suggested explanations based on vascular, lymphatic, and neural route theories do not adequately fit the observations. No treatment, other than reassurance, was necessary, and the patient recovered fully.
PMCID: PMC2148771  PMID: 10323117
3.  Propofol for sedation in a mentally retarded dental patient. 
Anesthesia Progress  1994;41(3):81-82.
A 21-yr-old mentally retarded and cardiovascularly compromised woman who required dental restorative work and extractions was admitted to our clinic. We had previously successfully sedated her with propofol and midazolam. In this case she was sedated with a 1% propofol solution administered initially at a rate of 8 mg/kg-hr. After 5 min, the infusion rate was lowered to 5 mg/kg-hr, and after the local anesthetic injection, was adjusted to 3 mg/kg-hr. After 15 min, the patient became restless, and the propofol infusion rate was again increased to 5 mg/kg-hr. The patient's airway was well maintained during the entire procedure; she remained well sedated, and no adverse effects were experienced.
PMCID: PMC2148817  PMID: 8934965
4.  Adverse reactions associated with norepinephrine in dental local anesthesia. 
Anesthesia Progress  1992;39(3):87-89.
Two cases are presented in which a 40-yr-old woman and a 20-yr-old woman developed severe headaches after injection of the local anesthetic Xylestesin-F (3% lidocaine with 1:25,000 norepinephrine). It is suggested that these severe headaches may have been associated with acute transient hypertensive episodes following injection of the local anesthetic. A review of the literature indicates that norepinephrine, at least at a concentration of 1:25,000, should be avoided because of its potential for cardiovascular disturbances.
PMCID: PMC2148749  PMID: 1308379
5.  Propofol and midazolam for conscious sedation in a mentally retarded dental patient. 
Anesthesia Progress  1992;39(1-2):36-37.
Conscious sedation was provided for a 21-yr-old mentally retarded and cardiovascularly compromised women who required dental extractions, by initially infusing propofol (3 mg/kg/hr), augmented with a bolus dose of intravenous midazolam (1 mg). After 45 min the propofol infusion rate was reduced to 1 mg/kg/hr. The patient remained well-sedated during the entire procedure and no adverse effects were experienced.
PMCID: PMC2148717  PMID: 8507022
6.  An anaphylactic reaction to protamine sulfate. 
Anesthesia Progress  1991;38(3):99-100.
Presented is a case in which protamine sulfate administration caused an immediate allergic-like reaction. The patient, a 50-year-old woman, had received protamine previously to reverse the anticoagulant effect of heparin after open heart surgery. In a similar operation 7 years later, protamine was used again for the same reason. Immediately following intravenous infusion of 3 mg/kg protamine sulfate, a sudden drop of the mean arterial blood pressure to 40 mm Hg occurred, and the heart rate increased from 100 to 130 beats/min. Severe angioneurotic edema of the face and trunk also developed. The reaction was successfully treated with vasopressors, steroids, and volume expansion. Subsequent skin testing revealed a positive reaction to protamine sulfate.
PMCID: PMC2161974  PMID: 1814251

Results 1-7 (7)