A randomised comparison of parecoxib versus placebo for pain management following minor day stay gynaecological surgery

11Citations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

At therapeutic concentrations, parecoxib selectively inhibits the cyclo-oxygenase-2 enzyme. We investigated the impact of a single preoperative dose of parecoxib on pain relief following minor gynaecological surgery. Ninety women undergoing uterine dilatation and curettage, with or without hysteroscopy, were randomised to receive either 40 mg of parecoxib intravenously or a saline placebo prior to induction of standardised general anaesthesia. Exclusion criteria included a preoperative history of renal dysfunction or hypertension and the preoperative use of anti-inflammatory or opioid medication. The primary endpoint was the pain score during recovery. There was no difference in global pain scores or area under the curve for pain scores in the recovery area. Pain scores with coughing one hour after surgery were low in both groups but significantly lower after parecoxib (median 2 [interquartile range 0 to 4] parecoxib group vs 2 [interquartile range 0 to 6] placebo group, P=0.037). The 24 hour Quality of Recovery score did not differ significantly between groups but the parecoxib group was less likely to experience headache at 24 hours postoperatively (12 vs 38%, P=0.007) and reported complete satisfaction more frequently (78 vs 57%, P=0.042). The preoperative administration of parecoxib was associated with a significant but small decrease in dynamic pain scores one hour postoperatively. Women who received preoperative parecoxib had a lower incidence of postoperative headache and higher satisfaction.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Luscombe, K. S., McDonnell, N. J., Muchatuta, N. A., Paech, M. J., & Nathan, E. A. (2010). A randomised comparison of parecoxib versus placebo for pain management following minor day stay gynaecological surgery. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, 38(1), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057x1003800123

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free