Analgesic efficacy and clinical acceptability of adjunct pre-emptive intravenous tramadol in midazolam sedation for third molar surgery
- 269 Downloads
This study aims to compare two routine procedures of sedation, with and without intravenous adjunct analgesia, in third molar surgery regarding postoperative pain and consumption of analgesics.
Material and methods
In a randomized, controlled, single-blinded procedure, 87 men and women aged 18–44 years were divided into two treatment groups, midazolam + tramadol (M + T) and midazolam + saline (M + S), and one control group (C), with no additional medication. After removal of a third lower molar, patients recorded postoperative pain on a visual analog scale (VAS) and consumption of analgesics during the first day after surgery.
Time from the end of operation until first rescue pill (400 mg Ibuprofen tablet) differed significantly between the M + S group (193 min) and the C group (110 min) (p = 0.001) as well as the M + T group (157 min) and the C group (p = 0.049). The study did not show any significant reduction of postoperative pain, VAS, after third molar surgery in patients who received adjunct pre-emptive intravenous administration of 1 mg/kg tramadol under midazolam sedation.
Discussion and conclusion
The lack of significant difference between the study and placebo groups indicates that tramadol at 1 mg/kg might be an insufficient dose, though the suitability for tramadol in oral and maxillofacial surgery has already been settled in other studies.
KeywordsTramadol Postoperative analgesia Midazolam Third molar surgery Pain
The authors thank Annelie Carlsson and Marie Svensson, research nurses, for their professional and invaluable role in the clinical accomplishment of the study; Håkan Flink, DDS, PhD, for meticulous monitoring of the study throughout the whole process; Jan Ifver, for his professional help with statistics; Pontus Carlsson, for his work with computer data input of all the patients and clinical numbers; and Harald Broberg, head of Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Falu Lasarett, for his research friendly leadership. The study has received financial support from the research fund of Dental Board of the county of Dalarna, Sweden.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no financial or conflict of interest or have any association with the medical or pharmaceutical industry regarding the subject of this article.
- 1.Liedholm R (2005) Mandibular third molar removal. Thesis. University of Malmö, SwedenGoogle Scholar
- 4.Henning Abrahamsson K (2003) Dental fear and oral health behavior. Thesis. Göteborg University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
- 7.Lundgren S (1985) Sedation regimen in outpatient oral surgery. Thesis. University of Umeå, SwedenGoogle Scholar
- 8.Rune J, Ström C (1996) Midazolam intravenous conscious sedation in oral surgery. Swed Dent J 20:29–33Google Scholar
- 22.ASA classification system (1963) New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology 24:111Google Scholar
- 24.Chernik DA, Gillings D, Laine H, Hendler J, Silver JM, Davidson AB, Schwam EM, Siegel JL (1990) Validity and reliability of the observer's assessment of alertness/sedation scale: study with intravenous sedation. J Clin Pharmacol 4:244–251Google Scholar
- 29.Moore A, Collins S, Carroll D, McQuay H, Edwards J (2004) Single-dose paracetamol (acetaminophen), with and without codeine, for postoperative pain. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 1Google Scholar
- 35.Gilliland HEM, Prasad BK, Mirakhur RK, Fee JPH (1996) An investigation of the potential morphine sparing effect of midazolam. Assoc Anaesth Great Brit Ireland 51:808–811Google Scholar