English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

espanolRESUMEN Introduccion: El dolor es un motivo de ausentismo laboral, en especial el dolor irruptivo secundario a canal lumbar estrecho. La dexmedetomidina como analgesico actua inhibiendo la liberacion de sustancia P en la via nociceptiva y bloquea los receptores de aspartato y glutamato. Por otro lado, la lidocaina tambien previene y alivia el dolor mediante la interrupcion de la neuroconduccion, uniendose a su receptor especifico dentro de los canales de sodio. Objetivo: Evaluar la eficacia analgesica de la dexmedetomidina versus lidocaina en perfusion endovenosa como tratamiento del dolor irruptivo secundario a canal lumbar estrecho. Material y metodos: Ensayo clinico controlado, aleatorizado, triple ciego, realizado en la clinica del dolor del HGM, se evaluaron dos grupos de pacientes con diagnostico de dolor irruptivo secundario a canal lumbar estrecho; un grupo tratado con dexmedetomidina (0,3 mcg/kg) y otro grupo tratado con lidocaina (2 mg/kg) en perfusion endovenosa. Se realizo medicion de la intensidad del dolor y el estado de sedacion antes de iniciar el tratamiento y posteriormente a los 30, 60 y 120 minutos. Tambien se evaluo la funcionalidad de los pacientes a traves del indice de discapacidad de Oswestry antes y a los siete dias del tratamiento. Se evaluo de forma secundaria el efecto de los tratamientos sobre los signos vitales. Resultados: No hubo diferencia estadisticamente significativa en la reduccion de la intensidad del dolor a los 120 minutos entre los pacientes tratados con dexmedetomidina (EVA 1,29 ± 1,63) comparados con los tratados con lidocaina (EVA 1 ± 1,19, p = 0,594). Se observo que al final de la perfusion de los farmacos, la dexmedetomidina produjo mayor sedacion a diferencia de la lidocaina (p = 0,003). Ambos tratamientos mejoran la funcionalidad en todos los pacientes sin haber diferencia estadisticamente significativa entre los tratamientos (p = 0,508) no se observaron efectos depresores sobre los signos vitales. Conclusiones: La dexmedetomidina y la lidocaina son igual de eficaces para el tratamiento del dolor irruptivo, con inicio de accion en los primeros 30 minutos de iniciada la perfusion hasta las siguientes 2 horas. No se observaron eventos adversos medicamentosos a las dosis recomendadas. EnglishABSTRACT Introduction: The pain is a reason for absenteeism labour, especially breakthrough pain secondary to narrow lumbar canal. Dexmedetomidine is an analgesic, act by inhibiting the release of substance P in the nociceptive pathway and blocks the aspartate and glutamate receptors. On the other hand, lidocaine also prevents and relieves pain by interrupting neuroconduction, binding to its specific receptor within the sodium channels. Objective: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus lidocaine in intravenous perfusion as a treatment for breakthrough pain secondary to narrow lumbar canal. Material and methods: Controlled clinical trial, randomized, triple-blind, performed at the HGM pain clinic, two groups of patients with diagnosis of breakthrough pain secondary to narrow lumbar canal were evaluated; group one was treated with dexmedetomidine (0.3 mcg/kg) and the other group was treated with lidocaine (2 mg/kg) in intravenous infusion. Measurement of pain intensity and sedation status was made before starting the treatment and after 30, 60 and 120 minutes. The functionality of the patients was also assessed through the Oswestry disability index before and seven days after treatment. Secondarily evaluated the effect of treatments on vital signs. Results: There was not any statistically significant difference in the reduction of pain intensity at 120 minutes between patients treated with dexmedetomidine (EVA 1.29 ± 1.63) compared with those who were treated with lidocaine (EVA 1 ± 1.19, p = 0.594), it was observed that at the end of drugs perfusion, dexmedetomidine produced greater sedation, unlike lidocaine (p = 0.003), both treatments improved functionality in all patients without having a statistically significant difference between treatments (p = 0.508), they were not observed depressant effects on vital signs. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine and lidocaine are just as equally effective for the treatment of breakthrough pain, with onset of action in the first 30 minutes after the infusion started until the next 2 hours, no adverse drug events were observed at the recommended doses.

Dexmedetomidina versus lidocaína endovenosa en el tratamiento del dolor irruptivo y la funcionalidad en pacientes con canal lumbar estrecho