Comparison of 3 Doses Intrathecal Morphine for Post Caesarean Section Analgesia

Main Article Content

Wipawee Siridech

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate and compare post operative analgesia and side effect of 3 doses intrathecal morphine
Research design: Randomize-controlled trial (RCT)
Setting: Operation room and obstetric ward in Surin Hospital
Subjects: One hundred and two term pregnancies with age 16-45 years, ASA physical status I II under went caesarean section at operative room, Surin Hospital.
Method: 102 term pregnancies, scheduled for Caesarean section, were randomly allocated into 3 double blinded groups. Group 1, group 2, group 3, received intrathecal morphine 0.1 mg, 0.2 mg, 0.3 mg respectively. Pain score, analgesia duration, Intravenous tramal injection and morphine-related side effect (respiratory depression, post operative nausea, vomiting, pruritus and sedation) were recorded for 24 hours postoperation.
Statistical analysis: One-way anova, Chi-square test
Result: The study review, Pain free duration of group 2, group 3 were significantly longer than group 1. Postoperative analgesia duradon of group 3 was significantly longer than group 1. Total tramal requirements of group 3 was significantly lower than group 1. VNS at 4, 8, 12 hours postoperative of group 2, group 3 were significantly lower than group 1.There is no signifi¬cant difference in incidence of pruritus, nausea, vomiting of three groups. None of the patient in all groups developed respiratory depression.
Conclusion: The result indicates that 0.3 mg of intrathecal morphine is the optimal dose for post operative pain relief in caesarean section. However, the side effects were more frequent in the higher morphine group but not serious and symptomatically treatable.
Key words: Intrathecal morphine, Postcaesarean section analgesia, VNS (Verbal numeri¬cal pain score)

Article Details

How to Cite
Siridech, W. (2018). Comparison of 3 Doses Intrathecal Morphine for Post Caesarean Section Analgesia. MEDICAL JOURNAL OF SISAKET SURIN BURIRAM HOSPITALS, 24(1), 303–314. retrieved from https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/MJSSBH/article/view/147223
Section
Original Articles

References

1. Chadwick HS, Ready LB. Intrathecal and epidural morphine sulfate for post cae-sarean analgesia A clinical comparison. Anesthesiology 1988;68:925-29.

2. Abboud TK, Dror A, Mosaad P. et al. Minidoseintrathecal morphine for the relief of post-caesarean section pain : Safety, efficacy and ventilatory responses to carbon dioxide. AnestheAnalg 1988;67:137-43.

3. Gerancher JC, Floyd H, Eisenach J. Determination of an effective dose of intrathecal morphine for pain relief after caesarean delivery. Anesthe Analg 1999;88:346-51.

4. Swart M, Sewell J, Thomas D. Intrathecal morphine for caesarean section : an assessment of pain relief, satisfaction and side effects. Anesthesia 1997;52:373-7.

5. Abouleish E, Rawal N, Salior K, et al. Combindintrathecal morphine and bupivacaine for cesarean section. AnestheAnalg1998;67:370-4.

6. CharuluxanananS, Kyokong O, Pongpak-dee K. Optimal dose of intrathecal morphine for postoperative pain relif in cesarean section. Thai Journal of Anesthesiology 1996;22:82-7.

7. Ratanachai P, Ungkasuwan W. et al. The comparison of intrathecal morphine dosage for post-operative analgesia in cesarean section patients. Thai Journal of Anesthesiology 1996;22:4:247-52.

8. K.C. Lam, S.N.R. Chan, et al. Inrathecal morphine for post-caesarean section analgesia : a comparison of 3 doses. ASEAN Journal of anesthesiology 2004;5:1:10-17.

9. Milner AR, Bogod DG, Harwood RJ. Intrathecal administration of morphine for elective caesarean section. A comparison between 0.1 mg และ 0.2 mg. Anesthesia 1996;51:871-3.

10. Timothy R. Epidural and subarachnoid opiods. In : Michael Ferrante, Timothy R. Vade Boncouer, eds. postoperative pain management. Churchill Livingston : London, 1993;279-303.

11. Raymond S. Sinatra. Postoperative analgesia : Epidural and Spinal Techniques. In: David H. Chestnut, eds. Obstetric anesthesia : Principles and practice. Mosby-YearBook, Inc. : St. Louis, 1994;513-547.