Key result
Inhaled Entonox reduces pain scores by ~21% versus inhaled air during panretinal photocoagulation.
Why the study?
Some patients cannot tolerate panretinal photocoagulation due to pain, and the efficacy of inhaled Entonox as an analgesic during PRP was evaluated.
Does inhaled Entonox reduce pain in patients undergoing panretinal photocoagulation for proliferative diabetic retinopathy?
RCT (n=20)
Double-blind
Crossover
Does inhaled Entonox reduce pain in patients undergoing panretinal photocoagulation for proliferative diabetic retinopathy?
Absolute Event Rate: 2.94% vs 3.73%
p-value: p=<0.03
Inhaled Entonox provides safe and effective analgesia during panretinal photocoagulation.
Supports Entonox for pain relief in panretinal photocoagulation; extends RCT evidence for analgesia in ophthalmic procedures.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) reduces the risk of visual loss in proliferative diabetic retinopathy but some patients cannot tolerate PRP because of pain. Inhaled Entonox was evaluated as an analgesic during PRP. METHODS: A randomised, crossover, double masked pilot study was performed. Patients inhaled either air or Entonox and half the PRP was applied. The treatment was completed with the alternate inhaled gas. Patients graded pain experienced during both stages of the treatment using a visual analogue scale. Pain scores were compared using a paired t test. RESULTS: 20 patients participated. Mean pain scores from the Entonox and air treatments were 2.94 (SD 2.73) versus 3.73 (SD 3.20) respectively (p<0.03). CONCLUSION: Entonox can be used as a safe and effective analgesic agent during PRP treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Helen Cook (2002) conducted an RCT in Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (n=20). Inhaled Entonox vs. Inhaled air was evaluated on Pain score using a visual analogue scale (p=<0.03). Inhaled Entonox significantly reduced pain scores during panretinal photocoagulation compared to inhaled air (mean score 2.94 vs 3.73; p<0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: