Lundgren S, Rosenquist J B
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1984 Oct;42(10):646-50. doi: 10.1016/0278-2391(84)90206-4.
In a cross-over study, intravenous diazepam was compared with rectal diazepam for sedation in outpatient oral surgery. Fifty-four operations were performed on 27 patients. Recovery from sedation, experience during the postoperative course, amnesia, estimation of the sedative effect, and patient preference of method of sedation were studied. The recovery times of the sedation methods did not differ. Sedative effects after the first operation were estimated as good by 87% of patients given intravenous sedation and by 75% of those given rectal sedation. However, there was a significant relationship between the subjective experience of stronger sedative effect and preference of sedation method that favored the intravenous technique. The degree of amnesia was significantly higher during intravenous sedation, but a high degree of amnesia was not related to patients' preference for a sedation method. Neither sedation method produced any local side effects.
在一项交叉研究中，比较了静脉注射地西泮与直肠给予地西泮用于门诊口腔手术镇静的效果。对27例患者进行了54台手术。研究了镇静恢复情况、术后过程中的体验、遗忘情况、镇静效果评估以及患者对镇静方法的偏好。两种镇静方法的恢复时间没有差异。首次手术后，87%接受静脉镇静的患者和75%接受直肠镇静的患者将镇静效果评为良好。然而，更强镇静效果的主观体验与更倾向于静脉技术的镇静方法偏好之间存在显著关系。静脉镇静期间遗忘程度明显更高，但高度遗忘与患者对镇静方法的偏好无关。两种镇静方法均未产生任何局部副作用。
