Noske W, Papadopoulos G
Universitäts-Augenklinik, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Ger J Ophthalmol. 1993 May;2(3):189-93.
Although chloral hydrate sedation has been recommended as an alternative to general anesthesia for pediatric examinations, we have had inconsistent effects after rectal applications for ophthalmologic examinations. A retrospective analysis of rectal chloral hydrate for computer-assisted tomographic (CT) examinations on 20 pediatric patients revealed that after a single application, sedation was sufficient in only 4 cases. In 14 cases, additional doses and/or drugs were required. Altogether, 6 examinations were canceled because of insufficient sedation. Therefore, the safety and effectiveness of oral chloral hydrate (60-100 mg/kg) was studied prospectively in 32 pediatric ophthalmologic examinations of 20 patients. The unpalatable taste of chloral hydrate may result in inconsistent intake, but all intended examinations and manipulations could be carried out with only minimal side effects. Oral chloral hydrate seems to be safe and effective for painless pediatric examinations and may be more reliable than rectal chloral hydrate.
尽管水合氯醛镇静已被推荐作为小儿检查全身麻醉的替代方法,但我们在直肠给药用于眼科检查后效果并不一致。对20例接受计算机断层扫描(CT)检查的小儿患者直肠使用水合氯醛进行回顾性分析发现,单次给药后,仅4例镇静效果充分。14例需要额外剂量和/或药物。总共6例检查因镇静不足而取消。因此,前瞻性研究了口服水合氯醛(60 - 100mg/kg)在20例患者32次小儿眼科检查中的安全性和有效性。水合氯醛味道不佳可能导致摄入不一致,但所有预期的检查和操作仅产生极小的副作用即可进行。口服水合氯醛似乎对小儿无痛检查安全有效,可能比直肠使用水合氯醛更可靠。