title: Role of hydrocortisone in prevention of pain on propofol injection.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Pain following intravenous injection of propofol continues to be an intriguing problem. None of the commonly used methods completely attenuate the pain. Inflammatory response to propofol contributes to the pain. Role of hydrocortisone in attenuating pain has not been evaluated. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of lignocaine and hydrocortisone in attenuation of pain following intravenous injection of propofol.
  
  
  METHODS
  A prospective randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted on 72 adult patients belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II, scheduled to undergo elective surgery. They were randomly assigned to four groups of 18 each. Group NS, group LG, group HC10, and group HC25. The groups received 2 ml normal saline, 2 ml 2% lignocaine, 10 mg/2 ml hydrocortisone, and 25 mg/2 ml hydrocortisone, respectively, as pretreatment. Propofol was injected 30 sec later. A blinded researcher assessed the patient's pain level using a four point verbal rating scale.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The four groups were comparable in respect to patient's characteristics. There was no significant difference of hemodynamics changes during propofol induction between all the groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of pain between patients who received hydrocortisone and the placebo group. The incidence of pain was significantly less in group LG than other three groups.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Use of intravenous low dose hydrocortisone pretreatment of the vein does not attenuate pain following propofol injection.
authors.affiliation: Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, India.
authors.forename: Monu
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Yadav
authors.forename: Padmaja
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Durga
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Gopinath
references.citation: Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010 Mar;27(3):253-7
references.pmid: 19696679
references.citation: Br J Anaesth. 1991 Feb;66(2):189-95
references.pmid: 1817619
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 1999 Jul;89(1):197-9
references.pmid: 10389803
references.citation: J Clin Anesth. 1997 Sep;9(6):462-6
references.pmid: 9278832
references.citation: Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005 Nov;22(11):888-90
references.pmid: 16225728
references.citation: Anaesthesia. 1988 Jun;43(6):492-4
references.pmid: 3261547
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 1992 Feb;74(2):246-9
references.pmid: 1731545
references.citation: Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2007 Jun;24(6):541-5
references.pmid: 17241503
references.citation: Anaesthesia. 1990 Jun;45(6):443-4
references.pmid: 2200300
references.citation: Br J Anaesth. 1991 Sep;67(3):281-4
references.pmid: 1911014
references.citation: Br J Anaesth. 1992 Sep;69(3):316-7
references.pmid: 1389851
references.citation: Br J Anaesth. 1989 Feb;62(2):202-3
references.pmid: 2784320
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 1996 Mar;82(3):469-71
references.pmid: 8623944
references.citation: Anaesthesia. 1995 May;50(5):474
references.pmid: 7793569
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 2000 Apr;90(4):963-9
references.pmid: 10735808
references.citation: Anaesthesia. 1996 May;51(5):498-9
references.pmid: 8694170
references.citation: Minerva Anestesiol. 2010 Sep;76(9):720-4
references.pmid: 20820150
references.citation: Anaesthesia. 1991 Dec;46(12):1069-70
references.pmid: 1781537
references.citation: Anaesthesia. 1994 Sep;49(9):817-8
references.pmid: 7978145
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 1998 Feb;86(2):382-6
references.pmid: 9459253