Author
Listed:
- Katharina Geißler
- Marina Ducke
- Gerd Fabian Volk
- Winfried Meißner
- Orlando Guntinas-Lichius
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effect of metamizole versus etoricoxib as baseline analgesic for treating postoperative pain after tonsillectomy. Design: Single centre prospective cohort study. Setting: Two consecutive cohorts of tonsillectomy patients. Participants: 124 patients (n = 55 treated with etoricoxib, n = 69 with metamizole); median age 30.5 years; 50% women. Main outcome measures: Patients rated their pain on first postoperative day using the questionnaires of the German-wide project Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Treatment (QUIPS) including numeric rating scales (NRS, 0–10) for pain determination. The influence of preoperative and postoperative parameters on patients' pain was estimated by univariate and multivariate statistical analysis. Results: The demographic parameters showed no differences between the patients in the metamizole group and the etoricoxib group (all p>0.05) with one exception: Patients in the metamizole group had significantly more preoperative pain than patients in the etoricoxib group (p = 0.001). The metamizole group had a mean postoperative pain in activity of 4.4 ± 2.1 and the etoricoxib group of 4.5 ± 2.2. Maximal pain for the metamizole group and the etoricoxib group were 5.6 ± 2.2 and 6.1 ± 1.9, respectively. Pain in activity, maximal pain and minimal pain were not different between both groups (p = 0.652, p = 0.113, p = 0.276, respectively). Patients of the etoricoxib group received more frequently piritramide in recovery room as demand medication (p = 0.046). In the whole cohort, patients with peritonsillar abscess had more preoperative pain in comparison to chronic tonsillitis (p
Suggested Citation
Katharina Geißler & Marina Ducke & Gerd Fabian Volk & Winfried Meißner & Orlando Guntinas-Lichius, 2019.
"Pain on the first postoperative day after tonsillectomy in adults: A comparison of metamizole versus etoricoxib as baseline analgesic,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-12, August.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0221188
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221188
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0221188. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.