venipuncture pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> a pediatric emergencydepartment. Pediatr Emerg Care 2011; 27:1151–1156.94 Liossi C, White P, Hatira P. R<strong>and</strong>omizedcl<strong>in</strong>ical trial of local anesthetic versus acomb<strong>in</strong>ation of local anesthetic with selfhypnosis<strong>in</strong> the management of pediatricprocedure-related pa<strong>in</strong>. Health Psychol2006; 25: 307–315.95 Carraccio C, Fe<strong>in</strong>berg P, Hart LS et al.Lidoca<strong>in</strong>e for lumbar punctures. A help nota h<strong>in</strong>drance. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med1996; 150: 1044–1046.96 Juarez Gimenez J, Oliveras M, Hidalgo E etal. Anesthetic efficacy of eutectic priloca<strong>in</strong>elidoca<strong>in</strong>ecream <strong>in</strong> pediatric oncologypatients undergo<strong>in</strong>g lumbar puncture. AnnPharmacother 1996; 30: 1235–1237.97 Kanagasundaram SA, Lane LJ, CavallettoBP et al. Efficacy <strong>and</strong> safety of nitrousoxide <strong>in</strong> alleviat<strong>in</strong>g pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> anxiety dur<strong>in</strong>gpa<strong>in</strong>ful procedures. Arch Dis Child 2001; 84:492–495.98 Crock C, Olsson C, Phillips R et al. Generalanaesthesia or conscious sedation for pa<strong>in</strong>fulprocedures <strong>in</strong> childhood cancer: the family’sperspective. Arch Dis Child 2003; 88:253–257.99 Ljungman G, Gordh T, Sorensen S et al.Lumbar puncture <strong>in</strong> pediatric oncology:conscious sedation vs. general anesthesia.Med Pediatr Oncol 2001; 36: 372–379.100 Evans D, Turnham L, Barbour K et al.Intravenous ketam<strong>in</strong>e sedation for pa<strong>in</strong>fuloncology procedures. Pediatr Anesth 2005;15: 131–138.101 Iannalfi A, Bern<strong>in</strong>i G, Caprilli S et al. Pa<strong>in</strong>fulprocedures <strong>in</strong> children with cancer: comparisonof moderate sedation <strong>and</strong> generalanesthesia for lumbar puncture <strong>and</strong> bonemarrow aspiration. Pediatr Blood Cancer2005; 45: 933–938.102 Fe<strong>in</strong> D, Avner JR, Kh<strong>in</strong>e H. Pattern of pa<strong>in</strong>management dur<strong>in</strong>g lumbar puncture <strong>in</strong>children. Pediatr Emerg Care 2010; 26: 357–360.103 Hoyle JD Jr, Rogers AJ, Reischman DE etal. Pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>tervention for <strong>in</strong>fant lumbarpuncture <strong>in</strong> the emergency department: physicianpractice <strong>and</strong> beliefs. Acad Emerg Med2011; 18: 140–144.104 Apiliogullari S, Duman A, Gok F et al.Sp<strong>in</strong>al needle design <strong>and</strong> size affect the <strong>in</strong>cidenceof postdural puncture headache <strong>in</strong>children. Pediatr Anesth 2010; 20: 177–182.105 Bruce EA, Howard RF, Franck LS. Chestdra<strong>in</strong> removal pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> its management: aliterature review. J Cl<strong>in</strong> Nurs 2006; 15: 145–154.106 Rosen DA, Morris JL, Rosen KR et al.Analgesia for pediatric thoracostomy tuberemoval. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 1025–1028.107 Bruce E, Franck L, Howard RF. The efficacyof morph<strong>in</strong>e <strong>and</strong> Entonox analgesiadur<strong>in</strong>g chest dra<strong>in</strong> removal <strong>in</strong> children. PediatrAnesth 2006; 16: 302–308.108 Bruce E, Franck L. Self-adm<strong>in</strong>isterednitrous oxide (Entonox) for the managementof procedural pa<strong>in</strong>. Paediatr Nurs 2000; 12:15–19.109 Akrofi M, Miller S, Colfar S et al. A r<strong>and</strong>omizedcomparison of three methods ofanalgesia for chest dra<strong>in</strong> removal <strong>in</strong> postcardiacsurgical patients. Anesth Analg 2005;100: 205–209.110 Charlton J. Pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> children. Core Curriculumfor Professional Education <strong>in</strong> Pa<strong>in</strong>.Seattle: IASP Press, 2005: 113–117.111 Phillips DA, Watson AR, MacK<strong>in</strong>lay D.Distress <strong>and</strong> the micturat<strong>in</strong>g cystourethrogram:does preparation help? Acta Paediatr1998; 87: 175–179.112 Butler L, Symons B, Henderson S et al.Hypnosis reduces distress <strong>and</strong> duration ofan <strong>in</strong>vasive medical procedure for children.Pediatrics 2005; 115: e77–e85.113 Vaughan M, Paton EA, Bush A et al. Doeslidoca<strong>in</strong>e gel alleviate the pa<strong>in</strong> of bladdercatheterization <strong>in</strong> young children? A r<strong>and</strong>omized,controlled trial. Pediatrics 2005;116: 917–920.114 S<strong>and</strong>y NS, Nguyen HT, Z<strong>in</strong>iel SI et al.Assessment of parental satisfaction <strong>in</strong> childrenundergo<strong>in</strong>g void<strong>in</strong>g cystourethrographywithout sedation. J Urol 2011; 185: 658–662.115 Gerard LL, Cooper CS, Duethman KS etal. Effectiveness of lidoca<strong>in</strong>e lubricant fordiscomfort dur<strong>in</strong>g pediatric urethral catheterization.The Journal of urology 2003; 170:564–567.116 Stevens B. Use of 2% lidoca<strong>in</strong>e gel dur<strong>in</strong>gbladder catheterisation did not reduce procedurerelated pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> young children. EvidBased Nurs 2006; 9: 41.117 S<strong>in</strong>ger AJ, Konia N. Comparison of topicalanesthetics <strong>and</strong> vasoconstrictors vs lubricantsprior to nasogastric <strong>in</strong>tubation: a r<strong>and</strong>omized,controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med1999; 6: 184–190.118 Wolfe TR, Fosnocht DE, L<strong>in</strong>scott MS.Atomized lidoca<strong>in</strong>e as topical anesthesia fornasogastric tube placement: a r<strong>and</strong>omized,double-bl<strong>in</strong>d, placebo-controlled trial. AnnEmerg Med 2000; 35: 421–425.119 Ozucelik DN, Karaca MA, Sivri B. Effectivenessof pre-emptive metoclopramide<strong>in</strong>fusion <strong>in</strong> alleviat<strong>in</strong>g pa<strong>in</strong>, discomfort <strong>and</strong>nausea associated with nasogastric tube<strong>in</strong>sertion: a r<strong>and</strong>omised, double-bl<strong>in</strong>d, placebo-controlledtrial. Int J Cl<strong>in</strong> Pract 2005;59: 1422–1427.120 Cullen L, Taylor D, Taylor S et al. Nebulizedlidoca<strong>in</strong>e decreases the discomfort ofnasogastric tube <strong>in</strong>sertion: a r<strong>and</strong>omized,double-bl<strong>in</strong>d trial. Ann Emerg Med 2004;44: 131–137.121 Babl FE, Goldf<strong>in</strong>ch C, M<strong>and</strong>rawa C et al.Does nebulized lidoca<strong>in</strong>e reduce the pa<strong>in</strong><strong>and</strong> distress of nasogastric tube <strong>in</strong>sertion <strong>in</strong>young children? A r<strong>and</strong>omized, doublebl<strong>in</strong>d,placebo-controlled trial. Pediatrics2009; 123: 1548–1555.122 Cohen L, Blount R, Cohen R et al. Comparativestudy of distraction versus topicalanesthesia for pediatric pa<strong>in</strong> managementdur<strong>in</strong>g immunizations. Health Psychol 1999;18: 591–598.123 Cohen LL, MacLaren JE, Fortson BL et al.R<strong>and</strong>omized cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial of distraction for<strong>in</strong>fant immunization pa<strong>in</strong>. Pa<strong>in</strong> 2006; 125:165–171.124 Chambers CT, Taddio A, Uman LS et al.Psychological <strong>in</strong>terventions for reduc<strong>in</strong>gpa<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> distress dur<strong>in</strong>g rout<strong>in</strong>e childhoodimmunizations: a systematic review. Cl<strong>in</strong>Ther 2009; 31(Suppl. 2): S77–S103.125 Cohen Reis E, Holubkov R. Vapocoolantspray is equally effective as EMLA cream <strong>in</strong>reduc<strong>in</strong>g immunization pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> school-agedchildren. Pediatrics 1997; 100: E5.126 Mark A, Carlsson RM, Granstrom M. Subcutaneousversus <strong>in</strong>tramuscular <strong>in</strong>jection forbooster DT vacc<strong>in</strong>ation of adolescents. Vacc<strong>in</strong>e1999; 17: 2067–2072.127 Ipp M, Cohen E, Goldbach M et al. Effectof choice of measles-mumps-rubella vacc<strong>in</strong>eon immediate vacc<strong>in</strong>ation pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants.Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004; 158: 323–326.128 Wood C, von Baeyer CL, Bourrillon A etal. Self-assessment of immediate post-vacc<strong>in</strong>ationpa<strong>in</strong> after two different MMR vacc<strong>in</strong>esadm<strong>in</strong>istered as a second dose <strong>in</strong> 4- to6-year-old children. Vacc<strong>in</strong>e 2004; 23: 127–131.129 Scheifele D, Halper<strong>in</strong> S, Ochnio J et al. Amodified vacc<strong>in</strong>e reduces the rate of large<strong>in</strong>jection site reactions to the pre schoolbooster dose of diphtheria-tetanus-acellularpertussis vacc<strong>in</strong>e: results of a r<strong>and</strong>omizedcontrolled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005;24: 1059–1066.130 Diggle L, Deeks JJ, Pollard AJ. Effect ofneedle size on immunogenicity <strong>and</strong> reactogenicityof vacc<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants: r<strong>and</strong>omisedcontrolled trial. BMJ 2006; 333:571.131 Taddio A, Ilersich AL, Ipp M et al. Physical<strong>in</strong>terventions <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>jection techniques forreduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>jection pa<strong>in</strong> dur<strong>in</strong>g rout<strong>in</strong>e childhoodimmunizations: systematic review ofr<strong>and</strong>omized controlled trials <strong>and</strong> quasi-r<strong>and</strong>omizedcontrolled trials. Cl<strong>in</strong> Ther 2009;31(Suppl. 2): S48–S76.132 Ipp M, Park<strong>in</strong> PC, Lear N et al. Order ofvacc<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>jection <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>fant pa<strong>in</strong> response.30 ª 2012 Blackwell Publish<strong>in</strong>g Ltd, Pediatric Anesthesia, 22 (Suppl. 1), 1–79
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2009; 163: 469–472.133 Lew<strong>in</strong>don PJ, Harkness L, Lew<strong>in</strong>don N.R<strong>and</strong>omised controlled trial of sucrose bymouth for the relief of <strong>in</strong>fant cry<strong>in</strong>g afterimmunisation. Arch Dis Child 1998; 78:453–456.134 Reis E, Roth E, Syphan J et al. Effectivepa<strong>in</strong> reduction for multiple immunization<strong>in</strong>jections <strong>in</strong> young <strong>in</strong>fants. Arch PediatrAdolesc Med 2003; 157: 1115–1120.135 Cohen LL, Blount RL, Panopoulos G.Nurse coach<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> cartoon distraction: aneffective <strong>and</strong> practical <strong>in</strong>tervention to reducechild, parent, <strong>and</strong> nurse distress dur<strong>in</strong>gimmunizations. J Pediatr Psychol 1997; 22:355–370.136 Kassab M, Sheehy A, K<strong>in</strong>g M et al. A double-bl<strong>in</strong>dr<strong>and</strong>omised controlled trial of25% oral glucose for pa<strong>in</strong> relief <strong>in</strong> 2-monthold <strong>in</strong>fants undergo<strong>in</strong>g immunisation. Int JNurs Stud 2012; 49: 249–246.137 Harrison D, Yamada J, Adams-Webber Tet al. Sweet tast<strong>in</strong>g solutions for reductionof needle-related procedural pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> childrenaged one to 16 years. Cochrane DatabaseSyst Rev 2011; Oct 5;(10): CD008408.138 Ipp M, Cohen E, Goldbach M et al. Pa<strong>in</strong>response to M-M-R vacc<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>in</strong> 4–6 yearold children. Can J Cl<strong>in</strong> Pharmacol 2006;13: e296–e299.139 Hanson D, Hall W, Mills LL et al. Comparisonof distress <strong>and</strong> pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants r<strong>and</strong>omizedto groups receiv<strong>in</strong>g st<strong>and</strong>ard versusmultiple immunizations. Infant Behav Dev2010; 33: 289–296.140 Taddio A, Nulman I, Goldbach M et al.Use of lidoca<strong>in</strong>e-priloca<strong>in</strong>e cream for vacc<strong>in</strong>ationpa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants. J Pediatr 1994; 124:643–648.141 Cassidy KL, Reid GJ, McGrath PJ et al. Ar<strong>and</strong>omized double-bl<strong>in</strong>d, placebo-controlledtrial of the EMLA patch for the reductionof pa<strong>in</strong> associated with <strong>in</strong>tramuscular <strong>in</strong>jection<strong>in</strong> four to six-year-old children. ActaPaediatr 2001; 90: 1329–1336.142 L<strong>in</strong>dh V, Wiklund U, Blomquist HK et al.EMLA cream <strong>and</strong> oral glucose for immunizationpa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> 3-month-old <strong>in</strong>fants. Pa<strong>in</strong>2003; 104: 381–388.143 O’Brien L, Taddio A, Ipp M et al. Topical4% amethoca<strong>in</strong>e gel reduces the pa<strong>in</strong> ofsubcutaneous measle-mumps-rubella vacc<strong>in</strong>ation.Paediatrics 2004; 114: 720–724.144 Amir J, G<strong>in</strong>at S, Cohen YH et al. Lidoca<strong>in</strong>eas a diluent for adm<strong>in</strong>istration of benzath<strong>in</strong>epenicill<strong>in</strong> G. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1998; 17:890–893.145 Albertsen BK, Hasle H, Clausen N et al.Pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>and</strong> bioavailability of <strong>in</strong>tramuscularasparag<strong>in</strong>ase <strong>and</strong> a local anesthetic:a double-bl<strong>in</strong>ded study. Pediatr BloodCancer 2005; 44: 255–258.146 Barnett P, Jarman FC, <strong>Good</strong>ge J et al.R<strong>and</strong>omised trial of histoacryl blue tissueadhesive glue versus sutur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the repairof paediatric lacerations. J Paediatr ChildHealth 1998; 34: 548–550.147 Farion KJ, Osmond MH, Hartl<strong>in</strong>g L et al.Tissue adhesives for traumatic lacerations: asystematic review of r<strong>and</strong>omized controlledtrials. Acad Emerg Med 2003; 10: 110–118.148 Zempsky WT, Parrotti D, Grem C et al.R<strong>and</strong>omized controlled comparison of cosmeticoutcomes of simple facial lacerationsclosed with Steri Strip Sk<strong>in</strong> Closures orDermabond tissue adhesive. Pediatr EmergCare 2004; 20: 519–524.149 Ernst AA, Marvez-Valls E, Nick TG et al.Topical lidoca<strong>in</strong>e adrenal<strong>in</strong>e tetraca<strong>in</strong>e(LAT gel) versus <strong>in</strong>jectable buffered lidoca<strong>in</strong>efor local anesthesia <strong>in</strong> lacerationrepair. West J Med 1997; 167: 79–81.150 Smith GA, Strausbaugh SD, Harbeck-Weber C et al. Tetraca<strong>in</strong>e-lidoca<strong>in</strong>e-phenylephr<strong>in</strong>etopical anesthesia compared withlidoca<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>filtration dur<strong>in</strong>g repair ofmucous membrane lacerations <strong>in</strong> children.Cl<strong>in</strong> Pediatr (Phila) 1998; 37: 405–412.151 White NJ, Kim MK, Brousseau DC et al.The anesthetic effectiveness of lidoca<strong>in</strong>eadrenal<strong>in</strong>e-tetraca<strong>in</strong>egel on f<strong>in</strong>ger lacerations.Pediatr Emerg Care 2004; 20: 812–815.152 Eidelman A, Weiss JM, Enu IK et al. Comparativeefficacy <strong>and</strong> costs of various topicalanesthetics for repair of dermal lacerations:a systematic review of r<strong>and</strong>omized, controlledtrials. J Cl<strong>in</strong> Anesth 2005; 17: 106–116.153 Eidelman A, Weiss JM, Baldw<strong>in</strong> CL et al.Topical anaesthetics for repair of dermallaceration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2011; 10: CD005364.154 Hock MO, Ooi SB, Saw SM et al. A r<strong>and</strong>omizedcontrolled trial compar<strong>in</strong>g the hairapposition technique with tissue glue tost<strong>and</strong>ard sutur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> scalp lacerations (HATstudy). Ann Emerg Med 2002; 40: 19–26.155 S<strong>in</strong>ger AJ, Stark MJ. Pretreatment of lacerationswith lidoca<strong>in</strong>e, ep<strong>in</strong>ephr<strong>in</strong>e, <strong>and</strong> tetraca<strong>in</strong>eat triage: a r<strong>and</strong>omized double-bl<strong>in</strong>dtrial. Acad Emerg Med 2000; 7: 751–756.156 S<strong>in</strong>ger AJ, Stark MJ. LET versus EMLAfor pretreat<strong>in</strong>g lacerations: a r<strong>and</strong>omizedtrial. Acad Emerg Med 2001; 8: 223–230.157 Burton JH, Auble TE, Fuchs SM. Effectivenessof 50% nitrous oxide/50% oxygen dur<strong>in</strong>glaceration repair <strong>in</strong> children. AcadEmerg Med 1998; 5: 112–117.158 Luhmann JD, Kennedy RM, Porter FL etal. A r<strong>and</strong>omized cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial of cont<strong>in</strong>uous-flownitrous oxide <strong>and</strong> midazolam forsedation of young children dur<strong>in</strong>g lacerationrepair. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 37: 20–27.159 Babl FE, Oakley E, Puspitadewi A et al.Limited analgesic efficacy of nitrous oxidefor pa<strong>in</strong>ful procedures <strong>in</strong> children. EmergMed J 2008; 25: 717–721.160 Henry D, Foster R. Burn pa<strong>in</strong> management<strong>in</strong> children. Pediatr Cl<strong>in</strong> North Am 2000; 47:681–698, ix–x.161 Sharar SR, Bratton SL, Carrougher GJ etal. A comparison of oral transmucosal fentanylcitrate <strong>and</strong> oral hydromorphone for<strong>in</strong>patient pediatric burn wound care analgesia.J Burn Care Rehabil 1998; 19: 516–521.162 Sharar SR, Carrougher GJ, Selzer K et al.A comparison of oral transmucosal fentanylcitrate <strong>and</strong> oral oxycodone for pediatric outpatientwound care. J Burn Care Rehabil2002; 23: 27–31.163 Robert R, Brack A, Blakeney P et al. Adouble-bl<strong>in</strong>d study of the analgesic efficacyof oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate <strong>and</strong>oral morph<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> pediatric patients undergo<strong>in</strong>gburn dress<strong>in</strong>g change <strong>and</strong> tubb<strong>in</strong>g. JBurn Care Rehabil 2003; 24: 351–355.164 Borl<strong>and</strong> ML, Bergesio R, Pascoe EM et al.Intranasal fentanyl is an equivalent analgesicto oral morph<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> paediatric burnspatients for dress<strong>in</strong>g changes: a r<strong>and</strong>omiseddouble bl<strong>in</strong>d crossover study. Burns 2005;31: 831–837.165 Fratianne RB, Prensner JD, Huston MJ etal. The effect of music-based imagery <strong>and</strong>musical alternate engagement on the burndebridement process. J Burn Care Rehabil2001; 22: 47–53.166 Hern<strong>and</strong>ez-Reif M, Field T, Largie S et al.Childrens’ distress dur<strong>in</strong>g burn treatment isreduced by massage therapy. J Burn CareRehabil 2001; 22: 191–195; ; discussion 190.167 Das DA, Grimmer KA, Sparnon AL et al.The efficacy of play<strong>in</strong>g a virtual realitygame <strong>in</strong> modulat<strong>in</strong>g pa<strong>in</strong> for children withacute burn <strong>in</strong>juries: a r<strong>and</strong>omized controlledtrial [ISRCTN87413556]. BMC Pediatr2005; 5: 1.168 Miller K, Rodger S, Bucolo S et al. Multimodaldistraction. Us<strong>in</strong>g technology tocombat pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> young children with burn<strong>in</strong>juries. Burns 2010; 36: 647–658.169 Miller K, Rodger S, Kipp<strong>in</strong>g B et al. Anovel technology approach to pa<strong>in</strong> management<strong>in</strong> children with burns: a prospectiver<strong>and</strong>omized controlled trial. Burns 2011; 37:395–405.170 Schmitt YS, Hoffman HG, Blough DK etal. A r<strong>and</strong>omized, controlled trial of immersivevirtual reality analgesia, dur<strong>in</strong>g physicaltherapy for pediatric burns. Burns 2011; 37:61–68.171 Mott J, Bucolo S, Cuttle L et al. The efficacyof an augmented virtual reality systemto alleviate pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> children undergo<strong>in</strong>gburns dress<strong>in</strong>g changes: a r<strong>and</strong>omised controlledtrial. Burns 2008; 34: 803–808.ª 2012 Blackwell Publish<strong>in</strong>g Ltd, Pediatric Anesthesia, 22 (Suppl. 1), 1–79 31
- Page 1 and 2: PediatricAnesthesiaVolume 22 Supple
- Page 3 and 4: doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.3838.
- Page 5 and 6: 1.6 Contact informationCorresponden
- Page 7 and 8: RecommendationsChildren’s self-re
- Page 9 and 10: Topical anesthetic preparations, fo
- Page 11 and 12: 2.7.6 Laparoscopic surgeryGood prac
- Page 13 and 14: In order to assess pain, effective
- Page 16 and 17: Postoperative painl NCCPC-PV (Non-C
- Page 18 and 19: 68 Broome ME, Richtsmeier A, Maikle
- Page 20 and 21: however, reductions in the response
- Page 22 and 23: increased success rate (i.e., less
- Page 24 and 25: Newer preparations such as liposoma
- Page 26 and 27: Good practice pointLubricant contai
- Page 28 and 29: most effective. There are a number
- Page 30 and 31: 12 Bellieni C, Bagnoli F, Perrone S
- Page 34 and 35: 172 van Twillert B, Bremer M, Faber
- Page 36 and 37: necessary to ensure that the patien
- Page 38 and 39: when compared with LA alone and sal
- Page 40 and 41: Peribulbar block improves early ana
- Page 42 and 43: Analgesia Table 5.5.1 Sub-umbilical
- Page 44 and 45: was more effective with less motor
- Page 46 and 47: with using landmark techniques (205
- Page 48 and 49: Good practice pointWound infiltrati
- Page 50 and 51: Analgesia Table 5.6.4 Urological Su
- Page 52 and 53: (298). Ketorolac did not influence
- Page 54 and 55: well as the epidural technique for
- Page 56 and 57: Good practice pointA multi-modal an
- Page 58 and 59: 14 Grainger J, Saravanappa N. Local
- Page 60 and 61: day-stay unit. Int J Paediatr Dent
- Page 62 and 63: tinuous epidural infusion in childr
- Page 64 and 65: 245 Morton NS, O’Brien K. Analges
- Page 66 and 67: 321 Taenzer AH, Clark C, Taenzer AH
- Page 68 and 69: Section 6.0AnalgesiaContents6.1 Ana
- Page 70 and 71: enhance systemic absorption. Lidoca
- Page 73 and 74: undergoes hepatic biotransformation
- Page 75 and 76: tein binding are reduced and the ha
- Page 77 and 78: a low-dose infusion but the child m
- Page 79 and 80: Table 6.6.1 Paracetamol dosing guid
- Page 81: steps that health care professional