The Australian and New Zealand journal of surgery
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
The use of taped skin closure in orthopaedic wounds.
The cosmetic result, cost effectiveness, and complication rate of three different types of skin closure: staples, tapes, and interrupted nylon were compared. In 68 wounds, skin closure was randomized to staples, tapes, or interrupted 3/0 nylon sutures. All wounds were closed subcutaneously with interrupted undyed 2/0 dexon. ⋯ Tapes were the most cost-effective because they are the cheapest although they were not as quick to apply as staples. There was no difference in complication rate. Tapes also afforded the greatest patient comfort.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Role of the pre-test in the progressive assessment of medical students.
A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted to see if a pre-test, given immediately before teaching, improved performance in a subsequent post-test. The study was also used to assess the educational value of a structured teaching method. Third year medical students were randomized into study and control groups. ⋯ The experimental groups did, however, increase their marks significantly when their post-test results were compared with pre-test marks (P less than or equal to 0.0001, phase I and II). It was concluded that the pre-test did not result in a measurable increase in learning. The study did demonstrate that the teaching method was effective as post-instructional knowledge increased by nearly half when compared with pre-test levels.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
A double-blind comparison of the relative efficacy, side effects and cost of buprenorphine and morphine in patients after cardiac surgery.
The analgesic efficacy, side effects and cost of administration of regimens of intravenous buprenorphine and intravenous morphine were compared in a randomized double-blind trial performed during the first 24 h after cardiac surgery. Seven patients received buprenorphine by intermittent intravenous injection and six received morphine by continuous infusion. Both these regimens provided good analgesia for the entire 24 h period, with only mild pain at rest and moderate pain on vigorous coughing. ⋯ Buprenorphine had no narcotic code restriction and could be given by intermittent intravenous injection, whereas morphine required checking and handling as a restricted drug and administration by continuous intravenous infusion. When labour and material costs were computed, over the first 24 postoperative hours, it cost $19.76 per patient to administer morphine, but only $3.16 to administer buprenorphine. Thus the use of buprenorphine injections for the first 24 h after cardiac surgery produced pain relief and respiratory depression comparable to that produced by a morphine infusion, but with a significant cost saving in terms of labour and materials.