In order to assess the effects of diazepam and meperidine as premedication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, eighty eight patients undergone an elective upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were studied. Studied patients were divided into two groups; one group was premedicated with buscopan and stropine(group I), and the other group was premedicated with diazepam and meperidien (group II). The results obtained were summarized as follows; 1) 83.0% of the group II (44/53) did not eomplain any discomfort by the procedure, but only 23.9% (8/35) of the group I showed no discopmort. The difference between two groups is statiatieally significant (p<0.005). 2) In 41 patients with previous experience of endoscopy, 22 patients from 27 of the graup Il(81.5%) did not feel any discomfort but it wes only 3 patients among 14 of the group I (21.4%) who did not feel discomfart (p<0,005). 3) In 47 patients without previous experience of endoscopy, 23 patients from 26 of the group II (88. 5%) did not show discomfort but it way only 5 patients among 21 of the group I (23.7%) (p<0.005). 4) In the patients with previous experience of endoscopy, 21 patients among 27 of the group II (77. 8%) felt better than that of the previous experience but it was only 3 patients among 14 of the group I (21.4%) (p<0.005). From the above results, we would emphasize that it is more effective to use diazepam and, meperidien as premendication for the gastrointestinal endoscopic procedure since it removes pstients apprehension rendering them a good cooperation with very minimal side effects,
Butylscopolammonium Bromide ; Diazepam ; Endoscopy ; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal ; Humans ; Meperidine ; Premedication*

PURPOSE: To analyze contrast-enhancement pattern of stomach cancer on dynamic MRI and to verify the efficacy of intravenous contrast agent in the evaluation of stomach cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve patients with proven stomach cancer underwent dynamic MRI, By using 1.0T scanner, we obtained precontrast FLASH images, and 30, 60, 90 second delay FLASH images after intravenous contrast injection. All patients ingested on liter of water and had intramuscluar injection of Buscopan just before MR study. For quantitative analysis we measured signal to noise ratio (S/N) of stomach cancer on each image, and signal difference to noise ratio (SD/N) between cancer and intraluminal fluid, cancer and the pancreas. For qualitative analysis two radiologists evaluated lesion conspicuity on each image by grading system(grade 0, 1, 2, 3: poor, fair, good, excellent). RESULTS: S/N of stomach cancer increased gradually by time(precontrast, 30, 60, 90 second delay:38.7, 42.5, 57.4, 65.7). SD/N between cancer and intraluminal fluid significantly increased after contrast enhancement(1.24, 25.01, 39.30, 45.89). SD/Ns between cancer and the pancreas were 10.5, 9.33, 9.99, 10.66 respectively. In qualitative analysis, precontrast images were better than postcontrast images for delineation of stomach cancer, Postcontrast images showed clear endo-luminal side of stomach cancer, but outer margin of stomach cancer was more distinct on precontrast images. CONCLUSION: Precontrast MR images are better than postcontrast MR images in the depiction of stomach cancer. Intravenous contrast agent is not imperative in the evaluation of stomach cancer.
Butylscopolammonium Bromide ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging* ; Noise ; Pancreas ; Signal-To-Noise Ratio ; Stomach Neoplasms* ; Water

BACKGROUND: Use of antispasmodic medication prior to colonoscopy is controversial but someone believes antispasmodic may improve visualization of colonic mucosa and ease colonoscope insertion. So, we designed a study to assess the effect of premedication with the antispasmodic, hyoscine-N-butyl bromide(Buscopan(R)) on the performance of colonoscopy. METHODS: This study was prospective, double blinded, randomized, controlled study, One hundred three consecutive patients were randomized to receive intravenous buscopan lml(n=52) or placebo(n=51) combined with our standard initial medication(me-peridine 50 mg and midazolam 2 mg). Insertion of colonoscopy was timed, and 100 mm visual analogue scales (VAS) were used for asscssing difficulty of procedure, colonic motility, frequency of positional change, frequency of external compression, difficulty of assistance and degree of discomfort experienced by the patients. RESULTS: There were no significant differences of intubation time between buscopan group(mean time, 7.23 min., range 2~15) and placebo group(7.07 min., range 3~25), (p=0.83) and withdrawal time between buscopan group (6.46 min., range 2-22) and placebo group(6.76 min., range 2 25), (p=0.69). Also, there was no significant differences in intubation time between males and females(buscopan; males 7.00 min., females 7.60 min., p=0.34, placebo; males 7.0~5 min., females 7.08 min., p 0.44). The VAS scores checked by endoscopist(p=0.29), assistant(p=0.32) and patient (p=0.15) were not significantly different in both groups. There were no significant differences in intubation time, VAS scores nf endoscopist, assistant, and patients. CONCLUSION: Premedication with intravenous bu.opan has no advantage on colonoscopy procedure. Use of antispasmodic medication prior to colonoscopy was not considered as recommendable agent.
Butylscopolammonium Bromide ; Colon ; Colonoscopes ; Colonoscopy* ; Female ; Humans ; Intubation ; Male ; Midazolam ; Mucous Membrane ; Premedication* ; Prospective Studies* ; Weights and Measures

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of Tramadol, Tramadol/HNBB combination and Tramadol/Alfuzosine combination in the relief of renal colic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 82 patients diagnosed with renal colic from May to October 2009 were included in the study. The patients were divided into three groups: Group I (n=27) was given Tramadol (50 mg/capsule orally) only, Group II (n=28) was given Tramadol and Hyoscine-N-Butylbromide (10 mg/tablet orally) and Group III was given Tramadol and Alfuzosine (10 mg/tablet orally). Pain was evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale pre-treatment and post-treatment.

RESULTS: The Visual Analog Scale scores for all groups showed improvement after treatment. The average difference in Visual Analog Scale for Group I was 3.148, Group II was 3.444, and Group III was 3.429. A significant difference was seen in all treatment groups. ANOVA was used to compare the differences between the three treatments. All treatments had comparable results, therefore, no significant difference was seen in the effect of the three treatments.

CONCLUSION: Relief of renal colic was achieved in all groups as seen in a decrease in the Visual Analog Scale Score after giving of treatment, however, the differences for each treatment group was not statistically significant.

Human ; Male ; Female ; Adolescent ; Child ; Renal Colic-Signs and Symptoms, treatment, management ; Visual Analog Scale-Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures ; Tramadol ; Butylscopolammonium Bromide

PURPOSE: To assess the value of MR imaging compared to CT for the staging of gastric carcinoma when body-wrap-around surface coil, intravenous glucagon, motion suppression technique and effervescent granules are used. MATERIAL AND METHOD: CT and MRI were performed for thirty-five patients with gastric carcinoma. Postcontrast CT scan was performed immediately after oral effervescent granules and Buscopan were given. Before MR imaging, BWA surface coil was wrapped around the upper abdomen. T1 coronal, sagittal and axial SE images (TRITE=400/15 msec) were obtained immediately after oral effervescent granules and glucagon were given. Respiratory compensation and presaturation techniques were used for each imaging. Three radiologists evaluated independently for randomly mixed 70 sets of CT and MR images. The signal intensity of gastric mass and enlarged lymph nodes were compared to the signal intensity of the adjacent pancreas, liver and spleen to evaluate any discriminating features between them. RESULTS: The accuracy in the diagnosis of pancreatic invasion was 83.8% on MRI and 74.3% on CT (p < 0.05). The accuracy of MRI and CT was 77.1% and 72.4% in detecting of gastric tumor respectively (p > 0.05), 73.3% and 68.6% in gastric serosal invasion (p> 0.05), 50.5% and 42.9% in lymph node metastasis (p > 0.05). The gastric mass and enlarged lymph nodes were hypointense to the intensity of pancreas and liver in more than 78% of cases. CONCLUSION: MRI was comparable to CT scan for the staging of gastric carcinoma. Therefore, MRI could be used as an alternative or adjunctive diagnostic modality in the staging of gastric carcinoma.
Abdomen ; Butylscopolammonium Bromide ; Compensation and Redress ; Diagnosis ; Glucagon ; Humans ; Liver ; Lymph Nodes ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging* ; Neoplasm Metastasis ; Pancreas ; Spleen ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Because colonoscopy is a painful procedure, analgesics and sedatives may be necessary as premedication. Midazolam reacts quicker, has a more excellent amnesic effect and fewer complications compared to diazepam. The effects of midazolam depend on dose, age, and rapidity of injection. According to several studies, side effects of midazolam were more common in high-dose injections (more than 5 mg) compared to low dose injections (0.03-0.05 rng/kg). Moreover, low dose injections were found to be as effective as high dose injections. However, there was no report about the effect and the side effects of midazolam in Korea. Therefore, we performed this study to determine the effect of low dose midazolam as premedication for colonoscopy. METHODS: We performed colonoscopy in 99 consecutive patients who were randomly selected (midazolam group: 50, placebo group: 49) prospectively from July 1996 to September 1996. Premedication was administered through intravenous injection of midazolam or saline 0.03 mg/kg, combined with intramuscular injections of meperidine 50 mg, and intravenous injections of Buscopan 20 mg in all patients. Blood pressure, puise rate, and O2 saturation by oxymeter were checked before, during, and 30 minutes after colonoscopy. The degree of amnesia, discomfort, cooperation and acceptance of the re-examination were checked.
Amnesia ; Analgesics ; Blood Pressure ; Butylscopolammonium Bromide ; Colonoscopy* ; Diazepam ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; Injections, Intramuscular ; Injections, Intravenous ; Korea ; Meperidine ; Midazolam* ; Premedication ; Prospective Studies