• Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.303-318
• /
• 1998

Cutaneous stimulation and distraction are independent nursing interventions used in various painful conditions, which is explained by gate control theory. This study was aimed at identifying the effect of cutaneous stimulation, distraction and combination of cutaneous stimulation and distraction on the reduction of intravenous injection pain levels of chemotherapy patients. Repeated measurement post test research design was used for one group. Fifty-three cancer patients who received intravenous chemotherapy regulary in outpatient injection rooms of D medical center and Y medical center in Taegu were studied from June 23, 1997 to July 12, 1997. First the intravenous injection pain level of the control period was measured. Second, the intravenous injection pain level of the experimental period using cutaneous stimulation was measured. Third, the intravenous injection pain level of the experimental period using distraction was messured. Fourth, the intravenous injection pain level of the experimental period using a combination of cutaneous stimulation and distraction was measured. The instruments used for this study were a visual analogue pain scale as subjective pain measurement and an objective pain behavior checklist. Analysis of data was done by use of repeated measure ANOVA, bonferni, t-test, and F-test. The results of this study were summerized as follows : 1) The first hypothesis that the subjective pain score of intraveneous injection pain in the experimental period with cutaneous stimulation will be lower than in the control period was rejected. 2) The second hypothesis that the objective pain behavior score of intravenous injection pain in the experimental period with cutaneous stimulation will be lower than in the control period was accepted(F=24.23, p=0.0001, Bornferni p<.05). 3) The third hypothesis that the subjective pain score of intraveneous injection pain in the experimental period with distraction will be lower than in the control period was rejected. 4) The fourth hypothesis that the objective pain score of intravenous injection pain in the experimental period with distraction will be lower than in the control period was accepted(F=24.23, p=0.0001, Bornferni p<.05). 5) The fifth hypothesis that the subjective pain score of intravenous injection pain in the experimental period with combination of cutaneous stimulation and distraction will be lower than in the control period was accepted(F=3.04, p=0.031, Bonferni p<.05). 6) The sixth hypothesis that the objective pain score of intravenous injection pain in the experimental period with combination of cutaneous stimulation and distraction will be lower than in the control period was accepted(F=24.23, p=0.0001, Bonferni p<.05).

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.23-28
• /
• 2005

Background: An epidural steroid injection (ESI) is usually used for the treatment of low back pain with radiculopathy. An ESI can be performed by two procedures: I) a lumbar or caudal epidural steroid injection and II) a transforaminal epidural steroid injection. Methods: Ninety-three patients, who had undergone transforaminal epidural steroid injection (Group II), and either a lumbar or caudal epidural steroid injection (Group I), were retrospectively studied. The authors assessed the pain, walking, standing improvement and side effects after each procedure, which were evaluated as being very good, good, fair or poor. Data were collected from the patients medical records and analyzed using the chi-squared test. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the pain, walking, standing improvement and side effects between the two groups. However, there was a statistically significant difference in the pain improvement following transforaminal epidural steroid injection in those not effectively responding to an initial lumbar or caudal epidural block in Group II. Conclusions: A transforaminal epidural steroid injection is a useful alternative to a lumbar or caudal epidural steroid injection for low back pain with radiculopathy.

• Journal of Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.306-314
• /
• 2007

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify factors that have an influence on the pain which patients recognize when receiving an intravenous injection. Method: Participants were 111 patients who were admitting to C University Hospital. The collected data were analyzed using the SPSS 11.0 program. Results: For the participants, factors related to administration of medication were the following: Phlebitis scale, who administers the IV injection, failure to complete the IV injection, explaination of the IV injection and rate of injection. Level of pain, depression and anxiety in the participants was as follows: Pain ($4.86{\pm}2.09$), depression ($35.76{\pm}9.91$), anxiety ($32.34{\pm}8.87$). There were positive correlations between pain and depression (r= .437, p< .000), between pain and anxiety (r= .478, p< .000), and between depression and anxiety (r= .544, p< .000). Conclusion: Such findings provide new insights into the dynamic relationships between depression, anxiety and pain which patients recognize when having an intravenous injection. Further studies should be conducted to establish the causal relation between depression, anxiety and pain and to determine appropriate nursing interventions.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.102-108
• /
• 2018

Background: Nefopam is a non-opioid, non-steroidal analgesic drug with fewer adverse effects than narcotic analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and is widely used for postoperative pain control. Because nefopam sometimes causes side effects such as nausea, vomiting, somnolence, hyperhidrosis and injection-related pain, manufacturers are advised to infuse it slowly, over a duration of 15 minutes. Nevertheless, pain at the injection site is very common. Therefore, we investigated the effect of warmed carrier fluid on nefopam injection-induced pain. Methods: A total of 48 patients were randomly selected and allocated to either a control or a warming group. Warming was performed by diluting 40 mg of nefopam in 100 ml of normal saline heated to $31-32^{\circ}C$ using two fluid warmers. The control group was administered 40 mg of nefopam dissolved in 100 ml of normal saline stored at room temperature ($21-22^{\circ}C$) through the fluid warmers, but the fluid warmers were not activated. Results: The pain intensity was lower in the warming group than in the control group (P < 0.001). The pain severity and tolerance measurements also showed statistically significant differences between groups (P < 0.001). In the analysis of vital signs before and after the injection, the mean blood pressure after the injection differed significantly between the groups (P = 0.005), but the heart rate did not. The incidence of hypertension also showed a significant difference between groups (P = 0.017). Conclusions: Use of warmed carrier fluid for nefopam injection decreased injection-induced pain compared to mildly cool carrier fluid.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.220-224
• /
• 1997

Background: The incidence of pain on injection of propofol varies between 30 and 100%. A variety of pretreatments have been tried to alleviate this problem such as a local anesthetics, cooling and opioids. However, none of these pharmacological maneuvers were satisfactory yet. In a recent study, subhypnotic doses of both thiopental sodium and propofol decrease the acute pain. We report a comparison of thiopental sodium, lidocaine and placebo on the incidence and severity of pain on injection of propofol. Method: A controlled, double-blind study was performed to compare the prior administration of intravenous saline 2 ml(n=30, group S), lidocaine 20 mg(n=30, group L) and thiopental sodium 50 mg(n=30, group T) in alleviating the pain by propofol. Injection pain was assessed with the four-point verbal categorical scoring system. Result: The incidence of injection pain during induction was lower in group L(30%) and T(17%) than group S(77%). The incidence of injection pain was lower in group T(17%) than group L(30%), but not significant statistically. The pain scores for recall of pain in the recovery room was simlar to those pain during propofol induction. Conclusion: The pretreatment of thiopental sodium can be effective in reducing both incidence and severity of propofol injection pain and has similar effect to lidocaine to prevent propofol injection pain.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.196-205
• /
• 2019

Background: Hypertonic saline (HS) injections for decompressive neuroplasty (DN) can cause pain. We assessed whether a continuous infusion of HS through an infusion pump would reduce injection-related pain compared with repeated bolus administrations. Methods: Fifty patients scheduled for DN were randomized to either the bolus injection or the continuous infusion group. After appropriately placing the epidural catheter, 4 mL of 5% NaCl was injected as four boluses of 1 mL each at 15-minute intervals or infused over 1 hour using an infusion pump. The severity of pain induced by HS injection, as measured by the 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS), was the primary outcome. The severity of low back or lower extremity pain, as measured by the 11-point NRS and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 3 months following the procedure, was the secondary outcome. Results: Data from 21 patients in the bolus group and 23 in the continuous infusion group were analyzed. No statistically significant difference in injection-related pain was identified between the two groups during the initial HS administration (P = 0.846). However, there was a statistically significant reduction in injection-related pain in the continuous infusion group compared to the bolus injection group from the second assessment onwards (P = 0.001, < 0.001, and < 0.001, respectively). No significant between-group differences in the NRS and ODI scores 3 months post-procedure were noted (P = 0.614 and 0.949, respectively). Conclusions: Our study suggests that administering HS through a continuous infusion is a useful modality for reducing HS injection-related pain during DN.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.150-154
• /
• 1998

Epidural steroid injection have become one of the most frequently applied conservative option for the management of acute and chronic back pain. As the indications for epidural steroid injections increase so do the adverse responses associated with this procedure. This study reports the succession of 3 patients who developed galactorrhea and hyperprolactinemia after recieving an epidural steroid injection for lumbar radiculopathy and low back pain. Serum prolactin level was elevated in accordance with epidural injection of corticosteroid. We measured the serum prolactin level by immunoradiometric assay method and peak serum prolactin level at above 500, 144.2, 150.3 ng/ml respectively. Also we found the serum prolactin level decreased to normal values 3 wks after corticosteroid injection. Galactorrhra ceased in advance of decrease of serum prolactin level. That "Hyperprolactinemia and galactorrhea can occur following epidural steroid injection", requires a much larger prospective investigation.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.122-128
• /
• 2015

Background: Caudal epidural injections have been commonly performed in patients with low back pain and radiculopathy. Although caudal injection has generally been accepted as a safe procedure, serious complications such as inadvertent intravascular injection and dural puncture can occur. The present prospective study was designed to investigate the influence of the depth of the inserted needle on the success rate of caudal epidural blocks. Methods: A total of 49 adults scheduled to receive caudal epidural injections were randomly divided into 2 groups: Group 1 to receive the caudal injection through a conventional method, i.e., caudal injection after advancement of the needle 1 cm into the sacral canal (n = 25), and Group 2 to receive the injection through a new method, i.e., injection right after penetrating the sacrococcygeal ligament (n = 24). Ultrasound was used to identify the sacral hiatus and to achieve accurate needle placement according to the allocated groups. Contrast dyed fluoroscopy was obtained to evaluate the epidural spread of injected materials and to monitor the possible complications. Results: The success rates of the caudal injections were 68.0% in Group 1 and 95.8% in Group 2 (P = 0.023). The incidences of intravascular injections were 24.0% in Group 1 and 0% in Group 2 (P = 0.022). No intrathecal injection was found in either of the two groups. Conclusions: The new caudal epidural injection technique tested in this study is a reliable alternative, with a higher success rate and lower risk of accidental intravascular injection than the conventional technique.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.231-237
• /
• 1994

Epidural steroid injection is a treatment for low back pain which allows smaller doses with less risk of side effects and longer duration of relief than systemic administration. From 1 June 1992 to 31 January, 1994, 1 mg/kg of triamcinolone diacetate in 8 ml of lidocaine 1% was administered 56 times to 33 patients who complained of low back pain. Results of epidural steroid injection provided effectiveness in treating various low back pain diseases except postlaminectomy syndrome. However there are no gains about repeated epidural steroid injection.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.18-23
• /
• 2010

Background: Complications following lumbar transforaminal epidural injection are frequently related to inadvertent vascular injection of corticosteroids. Several methods have been proposed to reduce the risk of vascular injection. The generally accepted technique during epidural steroid injection is intermittent fluoroscopy. In fact, this technique may miss vascular uptake due to rapid washout. Because of the fleeting appearance of vascular contrast patterns, live fluoroscopy is recommended during contrast injection. However, when vascular contrast patterns are overlapped by expected epidural patterns, it is hard to distinguish them even on live fluoroscopy. Methods: During 87 lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, dynamic contrast flows were observed under live fluoroscopy with using digital subtraction enhancement. Two dynamic fluoroscopy fluoroscopic images were saved from each injection. These injections were performed by five physicians with experience independently. Accuracy of live fluoroscopy was determined by comparing the interpretation of the digital subtraction fluoroscopic images. Results: Using digital subtraction guidance with contrast confirmation, the twenty cases of intravascular injection were found (the rate of incidence was 23%). There was no significant difference in incidence of intravascular injections based either on gender or diagnosis. Only five cases of intravascular injections were predicted with either flash or aspiration of blood (sensitivity = 25%). Under live fluoroscopic guidance with contrast confirmation to predict intravascular injection, twelve cases were predicted (sensitivity = 60%). Conclusions: This finding demonstrate that digital subtraction fluoroscopic imaging is superior to blood aspiration or live fluoroscopy in detecting intravascular injections with lumbar transforaminal epidural injection.