Article Sidebar
Published:
May 9, 2016DOI:
10.4314/ahs.v16i1.37Keywords:
Article Details
While African Health Sciences has been freely accessible online there have been questions on whether it is Open Access or not. We wish to clearly state that indeed African Health Sciences is Open Access. There are key issues regarding Open Access needing clarification for avoidance of doubt:
- 1. Henceforth, papers in African Health Sciences will be published under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on https://creativecomons.org/)
- 2. The copyright owners or the authors grant the 3rd party (perpetually and in advance) the right to disseminate, reproduce, or use the research papers in part or in full, format/medium as long as:
- No substantive errors are introduced in the process
- Attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given
- The referencing details are not changed.
Should the papers be reproduced in part, this must be clearly stated.
- 3. The papers will be freely and universally accessible online in an easily readable format such as XML in at least one widely recognized open access repository such as PUBMED CENTRAL.
B. ABRIDGED LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHORS AND African Health Sciences
I submitted my manuscript to African Health Sciences and would like to affirm that:
1.0 I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2.0 I guarantee, on behalf of self and co-authors:
- That the paper is original, and has not been published in any other peer-reviewed journal; nor is it under consideration by other journal (s). It does not infringe existing copyright or any other person’s rights
- That we are/I am the sole author(s) of the paper and with authority to enter into this agreement. My granting rights to African Health Sciences is not in breach of any other obligation
- That the paper contains nothing unlawful, or libelous. Nor anything that would constitute a breach of contract, confidence or commitment given to secrecy, if published
- That I/we have taken care to ensure the integrity of the article.
3.0 I and all co-authors, agree that the paper, if accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. (see https://creativecommons.org/)
Main Article Content
A randomised controlled trial comparing the effect of adjuvant intrathecal 2 mg midazolam to 20 micrograms fentanyl on postoperative pain for patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery under spinal anaesthesia
Abstract
Background: Intrathecal adjuvants are added to local anaesthetics to improve the quality of neuraxial blockade and prolong the duration of analgesia during spinal anaesthesia. Used intrathecally, fentanyl improves the quality of spinal blockade as compared to plain bupivacaine and confers a short duration of post operative analgesia. Intrathecal midazolam as an adjuvant has been used and shown to improve the quality of spinal anaesthesia and prolong the duration of post-operative analgesia. No studies have been done comparing intrathecal fentanyl with bupivacaine and intrathecal 2 mg midazolam with bupivacaine.
Objective: To compare the effect of intrathecal 2mg midazolam to intrathecal 20 micrograms fentanyl when added to 2.6 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, on post-operative pain, in patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery under spinal anaesthesia.
Methods: A total of 40 patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery under spinal anaesthesia were randomized to two groups. Group 1: 2.6mls 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 0.4mls (20micrograms) fentanyl Group 2: 2.6mls of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 0.4mls (2mg) midazolam
Results: The duration of effective analgesia was longer in the midazolam group (384.05 minutes) as compared to the fentanyl group (342.6 minutes). There was no significant difference (P 0.4047). The time to onset was significantly longer in midazolam group 17.1 minutes as compared to the fentanyl group 13.2 minutes (P 0.023). The visual analogue score at rescue was significantly lower in the midazolam group (5.55) as compared to the fentanyl group 6.35 (P - 0.043).
Conclusion: On the basis of the results of this study, there was no significant difference in the duration of effective analgesia between adjuvant intrathecal 2 mg midazolam as compared to intrathecal 20 micrograms fentanyl for patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery.
Keywords: Midazolam fentanyl, lower limb, orthopaedic surgery, spinal anaesthesia
