COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF ORAL VS. PERITONSILLAR INFILTRATION OF XXXX IN PAIN REDUCTION AFTER TONSILLECTOMY: A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL.

@entity1 @entity86 @entity158 @entity3652
BACKGROUND: Although oral @entity3652 has been used in some cases to reduce @entity158 in @entity1 , the use of this drug to reduce @entity158 after tonsillectomy has not been studied yet. METHODS: This double-blind clinical trial was conducted in 2009 in 92 @entity1 who were aged three to nine years old, met ASA I or II criteria, and were candidate for tonsillectomy. @entity1 were divided randomly into two groups. Half an hour before general anesthesia, 5 mg/kg @entity3652 mixed in 2 cc/kg apple juice was given to the @entity1 in oral @entity3652 group and 2 cc/kg of apple juice alone was given to the @entity1 in the peritonsillar group. After general anesthesia and three minutes before surgery 1 cc of 0.9% normal saline in the oral group and 1cc of @entity3652 (0.5 mg/kg) in the peritonsillar group was injected to the tonsil bed of @entity1 . RESULTS: There was no difference between the two groups in terms of sex, age, and weight. Duration of surgery was significantly shorter in the peritonsillar group (P < 0.001) and the severity of @entity86 was significantly higher in peritonsillar group (P = 0.022). However, @entity86 recurred in 25 @entity1 (27%) and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. The level of @entity158 in @entity1 six hours after surgery according to CHEOPS criteria was significantly lower in the peritonsillar group (0.9    0.8) than in the oral group (2.6    1) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The finding of this study showed that, compared with the peritonsillar infiltration of @entity3652 , the use of oral @entity3652 before general anesthesia was less effective in reducing postoperative @entity158 in @entity1 .
