PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-5 (5)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Efficacy and safety of a lidocaine/tetracaine medicated patch or peel for dermatologic procedures: a meta-analysis 
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology  2012;62(5):435-440.
Background
To justify the use of the lidocaine/tetracaine medicated patch or peel as a preventive treatment for reducing pain and discomfort in adults and children. We reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the lidocaine/tetracaine medicated patch or peel compared with placebo.
Methods
Ten RCTs (574 patients) were included in this systemic review. Relevant studies were identified through searches of MEDLINE, SCOPUS and the Cochrane database library. The outcome was the adequacy of cutaneous anesthesia reflected in the patient's assessment of pain intensity during minor dermatologic procedures and adverse effects after application of the lidocaine/tetracaine medicated patch or peel versus placebo.
Results
The efficacy of the lidocaine/tetracaine patch or peel was consistently very significantly beneficial 30 or 60 minutes after the application compared to placebo (Relative risk, RR: 2.5; Number needed to treat, NNT: 2.2). We did not identify any difference in the effectiveness of adequate analgesia between the lidocaine/tetracaine patch and peel (the number needed to treat or to harm, NNT 2.4 vs. 2.0). No serious side effects or adverse events were observed with the lidocaine/tetracaine medicated patch or peel and placebo. Minor skin reactions were transient and resolved without treatment (Odd ratio, OR: 1.4 and 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.9-2.1; NNT: 14.9).
Conclusions
The lidocaine/tetracaine medicated patch or peel is a well accepted, effective and safe method for minor dermatologic procedures based on pooled data of trials in terms of adequacy of cutaneous anesthesia and adverse effects.
doi:10.4097/kjae.2012.62.5.435
PMCID: PMC3366310  PMID: 22679540
Lidocaine; Meta-analysis; Tetracaine; Topical anesthetics
2.  Institutional review board (IRB) and ethical issues in clinical research 
Clinical research has expanded tremendously in the past few decades and consequently there has been growing interest in the ethical guidelines that are being followed for the protection of human subjects. This review summarizes historical scandals and social responses chronologically from World War II to the Death of Ellen Roche (2001) to emphasize the lessons we must learn from history. International ethical guidelines for studies with human subjects are also briefly described in order to understand the circumstances of clinical research. The tasks and responsibilities of the institutions and investigators in human subject research to preserve the safety and welfare of research subjects are summarized. Next, several debated ethical issues and insights are arranged as controversial topics. This brief review and summary seeks to highlight important arguments and make suggestions to institutional review boards (IRBs) to contribute to the future evolution of ethics in clinical research as we advance forward.
doi:10.4097/kjae.2012.62.1.3
PMCID: PMC3272525  PMID: 22323947
Ethics; Human; Institutional review board; Research
3.  Ramosetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV): a meta-analysis 
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology  2011;61(5):405-412.
Background
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a challenge for patients and health professionals despite various newly developed prophylactic interventions. We reviewed the efficacy and safety of ramosetron in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the prevention of PONV.
Methods
We reviewed 18 randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy and safety of ramosetron in comparison with placebo or any other drugs. Relevant studies were searched in the MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane database libraries. Our end points of concern were prevention of PONV and adverse effects as dichotomous data.
Results
The prophylactic effect of 0.3 mg ramosetron was observed in early PON (relative risk, RR: 0.4; 95% CI 0.3-0.6), early POV (RR: 0.3; 95% CI 0.1-0.6), late POV (RR: 0.3; 95% CI 0.1-0.6), but not late PON (RR: 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-1.0). Compared with placebo, the efficacy of 0.3 mg ramosetron in adults and 6 µg/kg in children were consistently beneficial in preventing PONV overall (RR: 0.4; 95% CI: 03-0.6). The effects of 0.3 mg ramosetron and 3 mg granisetron were similar. No serious side effects or adverse events resulted from ramosetron and other active drugs, and incidence was similar to those of the placebo group.
Conclusions
Ramosetron is effective and safe in children and adults without serious adverse effects compared with placebo or other active drugs, as shown in pooled data of RCTs, in terms of the prevention of PONV.
doi:10.4097/kjae.2011.61.5.405
PMCID: PMC3229020  PMID: 22148090
Antiemetics; Meta-analysis; PONV; Ramosetron
4.  Palonosetron has superior prophylactic antiemetic efficacy compared with ondansetron or ramosetron in high-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study 
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology  2013;64(6):517-523.
Background
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be a major problem, because PONV is associated with delayed recovery and prolonged hospital stay. Although the PONV guidelines recommended the use of 5-hydroxy-tryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonists as the first-line prophylactic agents in patients categorized as high-risk, there are few studies comparing the efficacies of ondansetron, ramosetron, and palonosetron. The aim of present study was to compare the prophylactic antiemetic efficacies of three 5HT3 receptor antagonists in high-risk patients after laparoscopic surgery.
Methods
In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial, 109 female nonsmokers scheduled for elective laparoscopic surgery were randomized to receive intravenous 4 mg ondansetron (n = 35), 0.3 mg ramosetron (n = 38), or 75 µg palonosetron (n = 36) before anesthesia. Fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia was administered for 48 h after surgery. Primary antiemetic efficacy variables were the incidence and severity of nausea, the frequency of emetic episodes during the first 48 h after surgery, and the need to use a rescue antiemetic medication.
Results
The overall incidence of nausea/retching/vomiting was lower in the palonosetron (22.2%/11.1%/5.6%) than in the ondansetron (77.1%/48.6%/28.6%) and ramosetron (60.5%/28.9%/18.4%) groups. The rescue antiemetic therapy was required less frequently in the palonosetron group than the other groups (P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the order of prophylactic efficacy in delaying the interval to use of a rescue emetic was palonosetron, ramosetron, and ondansetron.
Conclusions
Single-dose palonosetron is the prophylactic antiemetics of choice in high-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.
doi:10.4097/kjae.2013.64.6.517
PMCID: PMC3695249  PMID: 23814652
Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Postoperative nausea and vomiting; Prophylaxis; Ramosetron
5.  Is close monitoring in the intensive care unit necessary after elective liver resection? 
Purpose
Many surgical patients are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), resulting in an increased demand, and possible waste, of resources. Patients who undergo liver resection are also transferred postoperatively to the ICU. However, this may not be necessary in all cases. This study was designed to assess the necessity of ICU admission.
Methods
The medical records of 313 patients who underwent liver resections, as performed by a single surgeon from March 2000 to December 2010 were retrospectively reviewed.
Results
Among 313 patients, 168 patients (53.7%) were treated in the ICU. 148 patients (88.1%) received only observation during the ICU care. The ICU re-admission and intensive medical treatment significantly correlated with major liver resection (odds ratio [OR], 6.481; P = 0.011), and intraoperative transfusions (OR, 7.108; P = 0.016). Patients who underwent major liver resection and intraoperative transfusion were significantly associated with need for mechanical ventilator care, longer postoperative stays in the ICU and the hospital, and hospital mortality.
Conclusion
Most patients admitted to the ICU after major liver resection just received close monitoring. Even though patients underwent major liver resection, patients without receipt of intraoperative transfusion could be sent to the general ward. Duration of ICU/hospital stay, ventilator care and mortality significantly correlated with major liver resection and intraoperative transfusion. Major liver resection and receipt of intraoperative transfusions should be considered indicators for ICU admission.
doi:10.4174/jkss.2012.83.3.155
PMCID: PMC3433552  PMID: 22977762
Hepatectomy; Major resection; Intensive care units; Intraoperative transfusion

Results 1-5 (5)