No abstract available.
Buprenorphine* ; Meperidine*

No abstract available.
Hypersensitivity* ; Meperidine* ; Skin*

188 patients including 30 young adults and 158 old patients were successfully given spinal anesthesia with meperidine at doses of 1.2 - 1.4mg/kg -1b.w for surgery of the lower abdomen, peritoneal areas and the lower extremities. Mean duration of actions of spinal Meperidine were 80.56±12.75 minutes in young and old patients, respectively. There was no big difference of side effects of the spinal meperidine between these two groups of patients
Anesthesia, Spinal ; Meperidine

No abstract available.
Anesthesia and Analgesia* ; Anesthesia* ; Lidocaine ; Meperidine

No abstract available.
Animals ; Meperidine* ; Mice* ; Morphine* ; Naloxone*

In view of the current trend towards carrying out termination of pregnancy as day cases it is also important that the patient should be free from pain with a rapid recovery from anesthesia and a minimum of post operative sequalae. We compared the effects of three other anesthetic techniques for the termination of pregnancy in 100 healthy womes as day cases. 1) Anesthesia with thiopental sodium alone was associated with a high score of pain sensation(2+/-0.93) and with considerably rapid recovery(103+/-57.6 mins). 2) The combination of thiopental sodium and meperidine was associated with a lower score of pain sensation(1.58+/-0.8) and with rapidl recovery(101+/-56.4 mins). 3) Meperidine with diazepam was associated with the lowest score of pain sensation(1.4+/-0.69), but had prolonged recovery time(206+/-126 mins) twice that of other techniques. It was conclued that the combination A thiopental sodium and meperidine was the technique of choice for termination of pregnancy as day-cases.
Anesthesia ; Diazepam ; Humans ; Meperidine ; Pregnancy* ; Thiopental

Adequate pain relief is a requisite for a successful closed manipulative reduction (CMR) of fractures and dislocations. This prospective study was undertaken to assess the mode and adequacy of pain relief given to patients undergoing such procedures at Seremban Hospital from the 1st April to the 31st May 2001. All patients with fractures and dislocations scheduled to undergo CMR were included in this study. The type of sedative agents and analgesia administered were recorded. Demographic data and the type of fracture or dislocation of the selected patients were documented. A visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain perception was given to both to the patients and the medical personnel who performed the procedure. All data were collected manually before entered into computerized database for analysis. Of 72 patients included in this study, 47% were Malay, 26% Indian, 21% Chinese and 6% others. There was male predominance and the patients' age ranged between 9 to 79 years (average 27.4 years). Upper limb injuries (79%) were mainly fractures of the radius and ulna (29%) and isolated fracture radius (21%). For the lower limb injuries (21%), combined tibia and fibula fractures constituted 10% of the total cases followed by isolated tibia fractures (10%) and hip dislocation (1%). The most common pain relieving agents given during the CMR were intravenous pethidine alone (43%) followed by combination of intravenous pethidine and valium (36%), intramuscular pethidine (17%) and intramuscular tramal (4%). The Visual Analogue Score (VAS) for pain perception revealed that 61% of the patients had moderate pain while 21% had severe pain during the course of the procedures. Suboptimal pain relief administered during CMR should prompt positive actions to ensure that the patient is not subjected to undue pain just for the sake of an acceptable fracture reduction.
Pain ; Reduction (chemical) ; Meperidine ; pain perception ; Intravenous

Although rare, intraoperative allergic reaction can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Clinical diagnosis is difficult as there is a need to differentiate from other causes of perioperative adverse reactions, such as side effects of administered drugs, or patients' medical conditions which may present with bronchospasm or hypotension. Intraoperative allergic reaction may be triggered by various agents. Among those, opioid-induced allergic reaction is scarcely reported. We report a case of a patient who has previously had allergic reaction to meperidine and intraoperatively showed fentanyl induced anaphylaxis or anaphylactoid reaction with literature reviews.
Anaphylaxis ; Bronchial Spasm ; Fentanyl ; Humans ; Hypersensitivity ; Hypotension ; Meperidine

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Propofol induced sedation with bispectral index (BIS) monitoring has been reported to lead to higher satisfaction in patients and endoscopists during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures. There are no data, however, regarding the efficacy of midazolam and meperidine (M/M) induced sedation with BIS monitoring during ESD. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether M/M induced sedation with BIS monitoring could improve satisfaction and reduce the dose of M/M required during ESD. METHODS: Between September 2009 and January 2010, 56 patients were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to a BIS group (n=28) and a non-BIS group (n=28). Patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores were assessed using the visual analog scale (0 to 100) following the ESD. RESULTS: The mean satisfaction scores did not significantly differ between the BIS and non-BIS groups (92.3+/-16.3 vs 93.3+/-15.5, p=0.53) or endoscopists (83.1+/-15.4 vs 80.0+/-16.7, p=0.52). Although the mean meperidine dose did not differ (62.5+/-27.6 vs 51.0+/-17.3, p=0.18) between the two groups, the mean dose of midazolam in the non-BIS group was lower than in the BIS group (6.8+/-2.0 vs 5.4+/-2.1, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: BIS monitoring during ESD did not increase the satisfaction of endoscopists or patients and did not lead to an M/M dose reduction. These results demonstrate that BIS monitoring provides no additional benefit to M/M induced sedation during ESD.
Consciousness Monitors ; Humans ; Meperidine ; Midazolam ; Propofol ; Prospective Studies

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*