Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:15321287rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0007876lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15321287lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0026549lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15321287lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0592511lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15321287lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0002766lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15321287lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0348016lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:issue2lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:dateCreated2004-8-23lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:abstractTextIn a randomized, double-blind study, conducted in 60 patients after caesarean section, we compared epidural morphine (5 mg) with intravenous morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Efficacy of pain relief (visual analogue scale), comfort, satisfaction and side-effects were studied. In the PCA group, pain scores were higher (P < 0.005) from the third hour onward. The degree of comfort was similar. Overall satisfaction for the first 24 postoperative hours was higher in the epidural group when assessed on a graded scale from 0 to 10, but equal when assessed using qualitative terms. Haemodynamic and respiratory tolerance were identical without any episodes of respiratory depression or oxygen desaturation in either group. The epidural morphine group showed a higher incidence of pruritus requiring specific treatment (P < 0.005). Nausea was reported to be equal in the two groups. Consumption of morphine was higher in the PCA group. We conclude that epidural morphine analgesia, though of good quality, was associated with more pruritus. Morphine PCA, although producing a lesser degree of analgesia compared to epidural morphine, gave good satisfaction.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:statusPubMed-not-MEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:monthAprlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:issn0959-289Xlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:authorpubmed-author:LaxenaireM...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BakeBBlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BayoumeuFFlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HamonIIlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:authorpubmed-author:VirionJ MJMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:authorpubmed-author:Rapp-Zingraff...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:volume6lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:pagination87-92lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:dateRevised2006-9-18lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:year1997lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:articleTitleAnalgesia after caesarean section: patient-controlled intravenous morphine vs epidural morphine.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:affiliationDepartment of Anaesthesia and Surgical Critical Care, Maternité Régionale, Nancy, France.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:publicationTypeClinical Triallld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15321287pubmed:publicationTypeRandomized Controlled Triallld:pubmed