The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery
-
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg · Jun 1994
Experience with percutaneous tracheostomy in intensive care: the technique of choice?
The technique of percutaneous tracheostomy is described, the experience of 77 such procedures in a single intensive care unit over 2 years is reported, and the literature reviewed. Percutaneous tracheostomy is a safe, effective, simple and rapid technique for intubated patients receiving intensive care. It can be carried out by non-surgeons and has several advantages over conventional tracheostomy in these patients. It may in the future prove to be the technique of choice for elective tracheostomy in other groups of patients, including those undergoing faciomaxillary procedures.
-
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg · Feb 1994
Case Reports Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical TrialThe medical management of masseteric hypertrophy with botulinum toxin type A.
We describe the successful outpatient medical treatment of a patient with bilateral masseteric hypertrophy using botulinum toxin type A in a double-blind placebo controlled study. No significant side-effects occurred, and benefit has so far lasted for 6 months.
-
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg · Jun 1993
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialKetorolac and diclofenac for postoperative pain relief following oral surgery.
A double-blind clinical study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of intramuscular and oral ketorolac, a new non-steroidal anti-inflammatory analgesic with that of diclofenac and placebo for patients undergoing removal of impacted mandibular third molar teeth. Results showed that both analgesic preparations were more effective than placebo (p = 0.0029) and that ketorolac provided a similar degree of pain relief to that of diclofenac. It is concluded that ketorolac is important new addition to the available intra-muscular NSAID preparations.
-
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg · Apr 1993
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA multiple dose comparison of ibuprofen and dihydrocodeine after third molar surgery.
The objectives were to compare the relative merits of ibuprofen 400 mg and dihydrocodeine 30 mg or 60 mg taken up to four times daily for up to 6 days in the treatment of pain after third molar removal. A randomised, double-blind, multiple dose, crossover study was undertaken in 68 patients undergoing two-stage bilateral lower third molar removal. The results showed that ibuprofen produced significantly greater analgesia than either of the dihydrocodeine treatments on the day of surgery. ⋯ Dihydrocodeine 60 mg produced four times the number of patients affected by adverse effects compared with ibuprofen, and dihydrocodeine 30 mg three times as many. The principal adverse effects were nausea, vomiting and drowsiness. In conclusion, ibuprofen produced better analgesia than dihydrocodeine with significantly fewer adverse effects and is therefore a better choice for pain relief after oral surgery.