Intravenous paracetamol versus intramuscular pethidine in relief of labour pain in primigravid women

Pharmacological labour pain interventions: South African midwives' perspective

BACKGROUND

Women of childbearing age feel great about giving birth, but the pain could be excruciating depending on their pain tolerances. Midwives requires obstetrical knowledge and skills such as pain management during labour and safety. We explored midwives' perspectives on the utilisation of pharmacological pain alleviation interventions during labour in selected hospitals in Matjhabeng Municipality, Free State province, South Africa. A qualitative study was undertaken, involving a sample of ten midwives, using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Tesch's open coding data analysis method was applied to analyse the data. The midwives were restricted to use Pethidine and Phenergan prescribed by doctors for labour pain relief, which disrupted labour pain management and obliged them either to wait for a physician or follow telephone instructions. According to the midwives, women taking Pethidine and Phenergan encountered adverse effects and discomfort. Midwives identified high workload, inadequate personnel, lack of skill and knowledge, lack of medication availability, and lack of infrastructure as the primary challenges of administering pharmacological methods to women in labour. The lack of standing orders, which delays the administration of medications pending a physician's prescription, constituted an additional difficulty. In the instance that Pethidine and Phenergan were unavailable or ineffective for some women, the midwives recommended that women be administered alternative pharmacological pain relievers. They also advocated for institutionalization of pharmacological guidelines allowing them to use their discretion when treating labour pain. Midwives can only utilise a few standardised and regulated pharmacological medications for labour pain management. The midwives' ability to administer pharmacological pain relief during labour was hampered by a high workload burden, insufficient staff, lack of skill and understanding, drug unavailability, and inadequate infrastructure. Midwives advocated for supported guidelines that would allow them to treat labour pain at their discretion. Intersectoral stakeholders are required to improve midwife skills and attitudes. Health facilities need to train and supply analgesics to midwives. Midwives ought to be familiar with pharmacological pain relievers.

Comparison of intravenous paracetamol infusion versus intramuscular tramadol as labor analgesia: a randomized control trial

PURPOSE

Labor pain is one of the most agonizing pains experienced by all delivered women. Many pharmacological agents used in labor analgesia require intense monitoring facilities, which are not available in routine obstetric practice in low-resource settings. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of intravenous (IV) paracetamol and intramuscular (IM) tramadol on labor pain relief, labor progression, and maternal and neonatal outcomes.

METHODS

This randomized drug trial was carried out on 110 women divided into two groups. Group A women received 1000 mg of IV paracetamol, and Group B women received 100 mg of IM tramadol during the active phase of labor. Pain intensity was assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at intervals till 120 min of delivery. The maternal and neonatal outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant fall in pain score till 180 min of drug administration in the paracetamol group and 120 min in the tramadol group. At 180 min and 240 min, paracetamol is more effective than tramadol (p value 0.004 at 180 min and 0.0119 at 240 min). There were significantly low pain score levels at 60 min of delivery in the paracetamol group (p value-0.004). Nausea and vomiting were significantly higher in the tramadol group (p value 0.000013).

CONCLUSION

Compared to IM tramadol, IV paracetamol has a longer duration of action and fewer maternal side effects, making it suitable for parenteral analgesia in labor. Due to a better safety profile, there is no need for intense maternal and fetal monitoring with IV paracetamol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI registration number-CTRI /2019/05/019244).

Oral acetaminophen as an adjunct to continuous epidural infusion and patient-controlled epidural analgesia in laboring parturients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Intravenous acetaminophen is safe and effective as an adjunct to labor analgesia with combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). Oral acetaminophen is a much cheaper and safe option but has not been studied as an adjunct to labor analgesia till date. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effect of oral acetaminophen as an adjunct in patients receiving local anesthetic-opioid combination using CSE analgesia.

METHOD

In this ethically approved randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, 60 consenting parturients were randomly allocated to two groups of 30 each: acetaminophen (who received oral acetaminophen 1 g) or placebo, 45 min before the procedure. CSE was administered as per hospital protocol. All the patients received continuous epidural infusion (CEI) of levobupivacaine 0.1% and fentanyl 2 mcg/mL at 5 ml/h and PCEA boluses of 5 mL of the same drug with a lockout interval of 15 min if needed. The primary outcome was hourly mean consumption of levobupivacaine and fentanyl mixture (mL/h). Secondary outcomes included pain score, sensory and motor block, hemodynamic parameters of mother, duration of the second stage of labor, mode of delivery, maternal satisfaction, Apgar scores, fetal heart rate, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

The mean drug consumption per hour was significantly less in the acetaminophen group than in the placebo group (7.66 mL/h, SD 2.01 vs. 9.01 mL/h, SD 2.83; p = 0.04). The requirement for bolus was also significantly less in the acetaminophen group than in the placebo group (median 2.5, IQR 3 vs. median 3.5, IQR 2; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

The use of 1 g of oral acetaminophen could be a cheap, safe, and effective adjunct to CEI plus PCEA in labor analgesia.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous paracetamol in management of labour pains in a low resource setting: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the use of single dose of paracetamol intravenously in management of labour pains.

BACKGROUND

Pain during labour is a complex, subjective and multi-faceted physiological phenomenon that varies in intensity among women and is subjected to many social and cultural modifiers.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This randomized clinical study was conducted in Obstetrics and gynecology department from March 2019 to March 2020 including 96 primiparous women randomized into paracetamol group (n = 48) received 1000 mg of paracetamol IV infusion and pethidine group (n = 48) received 50 mg of pethidine given slowly IV. Primary outcome is the change of the intensity of perceived labor pain. Pain score was followed and recorded by visual analogue scale (VAS). Our study protocol was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04744727.

RESULTS

VAS score was highly significant improved gradually after 30 min, 1, 2 and 3 h of paracetamol and pethidine taken compared at start study, but participants in paracetamol group had lower pain after 2 and 3 h (3.92 ± 1.42 and 5.69 ± 1.07) than those of the pethidine groups (4.42 ± 1.87 and 5.38 ± 1.34). Also, 2.1% of paracetamol group developed dizziness and 4.2% developed nausea and vomiting, while there was 29.2% of pethidine group developed dizziness and 37.5% developed nausea and vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous paracetamol as labour analgesia is effective, safe, inexpensive, available and with no maternal or fetal side effects as compared to Pethidine. Paracetamol needs to have more chance in comparison to other forms as a labour pain analgesia, especially in our communities.

Comparison of Pain Score and Complications Following Acetaminophen and Pethidine Injection During Vaginal Delivery: A Double-blind Clinical Trial

Objectives

Recently, intravenous acetaminophen has been introduced as an intervention with analgesic potential similar to that of opioid analgesics in labor pain management. This study aimed to compare the pain score and maternal and neonatal complications following acetaminophen and pethidine injections during vaginal delivery.

Methods

This randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted on pregnant women during the first stage of delivery referred to Ghaem and Omolbanin Hospitals in Mashhad, Iran, from March to December 2017. The subjects were assigned randomly to one of two groups: acetaminophen and pethidine. The pain intensity was measured before and 15, 60, 120, 180, and 240 minutes after injection.

Results

The pain score and pain score changes showed no significant difference between the two groups at different times. The incidence of maternal complications during delivery and the first hour after delivery was not statistically significant between the two groups, but 15 minutes after injection, vomiting (p = 0.001), nausea (p = 0.001), and dizziness (p = 0.001) were significantly higher in the pethidine group. The mean one and five minutes Apgar scores were significantly higher in the acetaminophen group.

Conclusions

Intravenous acetaminophen led to fewer maternal complications than pethidine, especially during the first 15 minutes after injection and fewer neonatal complications, especially in the Apgar score.

Pethidine in Low Doses versus Dipyrone for Pain Relief in Labor: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

 To compare low doses of pethidine with dipyrone in labor analgesia.

METHODS

 In a randomized prospective study conducted by Universidade de Fortaleza, in the state of Ceará, Brazil, between May and December 2016, 200 full-term parturients, with very painful uterine contractions and exhibiting uterine cervix dilatation ≥ 5 cm, were selected to receive a single intravenous dose of either 0.25 mg/kg of pethidine (n = 100) or of 25 mg/kg of dipyrone (n = 100). Pain was assessed using the visual analogue scale. The data were analyzed using the Student t-test, the chi-square test and the likelihood ratio.

RESULTS

 There was a significant improvement in pain in 35% of the parturients. Both drugs presented a similar analgesic effect 1 hour after the intervention (p = 0.692). There was no analgesic effect during the evaluation of the second hour after the intervention with pethidine or dipyrone. There were no adverse effects, such as maternal drowsiness, nausea or vomiting, related to the drugs used.

CONCLUSION

 Pethidine in low doses and dipyrone presented equivalent analgesia during labor.

PUBLIC REGISTRY OF CLINICAL TRIALS

 RBR-4hsyy4.

"We know it's labour pain, so we don't do anything": healthcare provider's knowledge and attitudes regarding the provision of pain relief during labour and after childbirth

BACKGROUND

Most women experience pain during labour and after childbirth. There are various options, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, available to help women cope with and relieve pain during labour and after childbirth. In low resource settings, women often do not have access to effective pain relief. Healthcare providers have a duty of care to support women and improve quality of care. We investigated the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare providers regarding the provision of pain relief options in a hospital in Moshi, Tanzania.

METHODS

Semi-structured key informant interviews (n = 24) and two focus group discussions (n = 10) were conducted with healthcare providers (n = 34) in Tanzania. Transcribed interviews were coded and codes grouped into categories. Thematic framework analysis was undertaken to identify emerging themes.

RESULTS

Most healthcare providers are aware of various approaches to pain management including both pharmacological and non-pharmacological options. Enabling factors included a desire to help, the common use of non-pharmacological methods during labour and the availability of pharmacological pain relief for women who have had a Caesarean section. Challenges included shortage of staff, lack of equipment, no access to nitrous oxide or epidural medication, and fears regarding the effect of opiates on the woman and/or baby. Half of all healthcare providers consider labour pain as 'natural' and necessary for birth and therefore do not routinely provide pharmacological pain relief. Suggested solutions to increase evidence-based pain management included: creating an enabling environment, providing education, improving the use of available methods (both pharmacological and non-pharmacological), emphasising the use of context-specific protocols and future research to understand how best to provide care that meets women's needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Many healthcare providers do not routinely offer pharmacological pain relief during labour and after childbirth, despite availability of some resources. Most healthcare providers are open to helping women and improving quality of pain management using an approach that respects women's culture and beliefs. Women are increasingly accessing care during labour and there is now a window of opportunity to adapt and amend available maternity care packages to include comprehensive provision for pain relief (both pharmacological and non-pharmacological) as an integral component of quality of care.

Parenteral opioids for maternal pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Parenteral opioids (intramuscular and intravenous drugs including patient-controlled analgesia) are used for pain relief in labour in many countries throughout the world. This review is an update of a review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, safety and acceptability to women of different types, doses and modes of administration of parenteral opioid analgesia in labour. A second objective is to assess the effects of opioids in labour on the baby in terms of safety, condition at birth and early feeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (11 May 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials examining the use of intramuscular or intravenous opioids (including patient-controlled analgesia) for women in labour. Cluster-randomised trials were also eligible for inclusion, although none were identified. We did not include quasi-randomised trials. We looked at studies comparing an opioid with another opioid, placebo, no treatment, other non-pharmacological interventions (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)) or inhaled analgesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of each evidence synthesis using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 70 studies that compared an opioid with placebo or no treatment, another opioid administered intramuscularly or intravenously or compared with TENS applied to the back. Sixty-one studies involving more than 8000 women contributed data to the review and these studies reported on 34 different comparisons; for many comparisons and outcomes only one study contributed data. All of the studies were conducted in hospital settings, on healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 37 to 42 weeks' gestation. We excluded studies focusing on women with pre-eclampsia or pre-existing conditions or with a compromised fetus. Overall, the evidence was graded as low- or very low-quality regarding the analgesic effect of opioids and satisfaction with analgesia; evidence was downgraded because of study design limitations, and many of the studies were underpowered to detect differences between groups and so effect estimates were imprecise. Due to the large number of different comparisons, it was not possible to present GRADE findings for every comparison.For the comparison of intramuscular pethidine (50 mg/100 mg) versus placebo, no clear differences were found in maternal satisfaction with analgesia measured during labour (number of women satisfied or very satisfied after 30 minutes: 50 women; 1 trial; risk ratio (RR) 7.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 128.87, very low-quality evidence), or number of women requesting an epidural (50 women; 1 trial; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.78; very low-quality evidence). Pain scores (reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) score of at least 40 mm: 50 women; 1 trial; RR 25, 95% CI 1.56 to 400, low-quality evidence) and pain measured in labour (women reporting pain relief to be "good" or "fair" within one hour of administration: 116 women; 1 trial; RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.47, low-quality evidence) were both reduced in the pethidine group, and fewer women requested any additional analgesia (50 women; 1 trial; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94, low-quality evidence).There was limited information on adverse effects and harm to women and babies. There were few results that clearly showed that one opioid was more effective than another. Overall, findings indicated that parenteral opioids provided some pain relief and moderate satisfaction with analgesia in labour. Opioid drugs were associated with maternal nausea, vomiting and drowsiness, although different opioid drugs were associated with different adverse effects. There was no clear evidence of adverse effects of opioids on the newborn. We did not have sufficient evidence to assess which opioid drug provided the best pain relief with the least adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Though most evidence is of low- or very-low quality, for healthy women with an uncomplicated pregnancy who are giving birth at 37 to 42 weeks, parenteral opioids appear to provide some relief from pain in labour but are associated with drowsiness, nausea, and vomiting in the woman. Effects on the newborn are unclear. Maternal satisfaction with opioid analgesia was largely unreported. The review needs to be examined alongside related Cochrane reviews. More research is needed to determine which analgesic intervention is most effective, and provides greatest satisfaction to women with acceptable adverse effects for mothers and their newborn.

Efficacy of Intravenous Infusion of Acetaminophen for Intrapartum Analgesia

INTRODUCTION

The intensity of pain experienced by women in labour, has been found to affect the progress of labour, foetal well-being and maternal psychology. Adverse effects associated with commonly used opioids for providing intrapartum analgesia have created a need for an alternative non-opioid drug.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of an intravenous infusion of 1000 mg of acetaminophen as an intrapartum analgesic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present prospective single-centre, single blind, placebo-controlled randomized interventional study was conducted in Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Vardhaman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital over a period of six months from September 2014 to March 2015. After receiving the ethical clearance and written informed consent. The first 200 consecutive parturients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were recruited into the study. Women were then randomised to receive either intravenous 1000 mg (100ml) of acetaminophen (Group A, n=100) or 100 ml normal saline (Group B, n=100). Primary outcome assessed was effectiveness of acetaminophen to provide an adequate amount of analgesia, as measured by a change in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain intensity score at various times after drug administration. Secondary outcomes measured were duration of labour, need for additional rescue analgesia and presence of adverse maternal or foetal effect.

RESULTS

There was pain reduction at 1 and 2 hours in both groups (p<0.001). However, it was more significant in the acetaminophen group, especially at 1 hour. Duration of labour was shortened in both the groups, without any maternal and foetal adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous acetaminophen is an efficacious non-opioid drug for relieving labour pain without any significant maternal and foetal adverse effects.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Use of Enthonox With Pethidine for Pain Relief in Primigravid Women During the Active Phase of Labor

Background

The use of pain-relieving drugs during labor is now part of standard care in many countries throughout the world. Each method of pain relief has its own risks and benefits, variations in effectiveness, and availability and acceptability.

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intramuscular pethidine as an analgesic during labor by comparing it to inhaled 50% nitrous oxide (Entonox).

Methods

In this clinical trial study, 100 women who expected to have a natural childbirth were observed. The inclusion criteria for this study were the commencement of spontaneous labor pain along with appropriate maternal and fetal indications for vaginal delivery. By using random numbers, each subject was randomly allocated to one of two groups, with one group using Entonox and the other receiving an intramuscular injection of 0.5 mg/kg of pethidine for pain relief. The intensity of labor pain experienced by the subjects and the outcomes of the deliveries were collected with questionnaires.

Results

The average pain scores in the Entonox and pethidine groups were 3.94 ± 1.4 and 5.6 ± 1.1, respectively, 30 minutes after intervention (P = 0.001), but there was not a significant difference in the severity of the pain (5.06 ± 1.4 and 4.7 ± 1.1 for the Entonox and pethidine groups, respectively) between the subjects in each group 60 minutes after the intervention (P = 0.592). No significant differences were seen in the duration and interval of uterine contractions, maternal complications, Apgar scores, and the duration of the first and second stage of labor between the two studied groups (P > 0.05). An analysis of the pooled risk differences showed that none of the side effects investigated were significantly different between the two groups except for mouth dryness, which was significantly higher in nitrous oxide users (P = 0.044).

Conclusions

Inhaled nitrous oxide seems to give better pain relief in the short term compared to a single dose of pethidine. Entonox, which is more convenient to administer than an intramuscular injection of pethidine, is also regarded as safe both for mothers and neonates.

Intravenous paracetamol infusion versus intramuscular tramadol as an intrapartum labor analgesic

OBJECTIVES

To compare intravenous paracetamol and intramuscular tramadol as labor analgesics.

METHODS

This prospective-randomized study conducted in 200 primigravidae in active labor, distributed into two groups of 100 women each with one receiving intravenous 1,000 mg Paracetamol and other 100 mg intramuscular tramadol. Pain intensity is recorded by McGills scale before, one and 3 h after drug administration. Perinatal outcome is recorded.

RESULTS

No difference in pain intensity is seen before drug administration. After 1 h of drug administration, in paracetamol group, 4 % women had horrible pain, and 29 % had distressing pain, while in tramadol group, 30 % women had horrible pain, and 60 % had distressing pain. After 3 h of drug administration, in paracetamol group, 26 % had distressing pain, while in tramadol group, 51 % women had horrible pain, and 35 % had distressing pain. Labor duration in paracetamol and tramadol group was 4.3 and 5.9 h, respectively. In paracetamol group, nausea is seen in 2.2 % and vomiting in 1.1 %, while in tramadol group, nausea is seen in 6.4 % and vomiting in 4.3 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous paracetamol is more effective labor analgesic with fewer maternal adverse effects and shortens labor as compared to intramuscular tramadol.

Medical treatment of allergy in children with recurrent or chronic sinusitis

Background:

Diagnosis and treatment of chronic and recurrent sinusitis in children is of potential importance and many factors can havean influence on it. This study assessed the chronic and recurrent sinusitis and affecting factors, as well as the role of allergy in its course and treatment in children.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 106 children with the diagnosis of chronic or recurrent sinusitis, referred to specialty clinics of otolaryngology and allergy of Tabriz Children Educational-Medical centres since 2010 to 2012, were enrolled. The history and physicalexamination findings were recorded for all patients and allergy Prick test was done for all. Response to treatment was evaluated during the follow-up visits.

Results:

The mean age of studied patients was 6.5 ± 2.9 years. Of all the patients, 54 (50.9%) were male and 52 (49.1%) were female. Skin Prick test was positive in 69.8%. Response to treatment was seen in 86.8% of the patients while 7.5% did not have any favourable outcome. Anti-allergic treatment caused better outcomes in patients with positive Skin Prick test than those with negative results.

Conclusion:

The prevalence of allergic disease in children with chronic or recurrent sinusitis is considerable and anti-allergic treatments can result infavourable therapeutic outcomes in children with sinusitis, especially with positive skin prick test results.

Effects of high versus low-dose atorvastatin on high sensitive C-reactive protein in acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality. The previous findings which suggest the reduction in C-reactive protein (CRP) levels by statin encouraged us to conduct the present study in which we tested the effects of atorvastatin, on levels of hs-CRP in a prospective randomised clinical trial study on patients with acute coronary syndrome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Present prospective randomised clinical trial study conducted on 180 patients who had developed coronary artery disease and presented in emergency departments of Educational-Medical centers of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. The patients were divided randomly into two groups and then two therapeutic protocols were given to them. One group medicated by high-dose atorvastatin (40 mg) and the other group received low-dose atorvastatin (20 mg). All variables were collected by questionnaires and were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 180 patients consisted of 34 females and 56 males in low-dose atorvastatin group (L-DA group), and 30 females and 60 males in high-dose atorvastatin group (H-DA group) (P = 0.533). In this study atorvastatin in high doses decreased hs-CRP levels about 40% and in low doses it only caused decrease of 13.3%, and significant correlation was observed between two groups (Paired Sample T-test) (P = 0.001). Also atorvastatin in high doses decreased LDL levels about 23% and in low doses it only decreased 10%, and significant correlation was observed between two groups (Paired Sample T-test) (P = 0.001). Atorvastatin in high doses decreased HDL levels about 9% and in low doses it only decreased 6%, and again significant correlation was observed between two groups (P = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

The present study confirms the novel observation that atorvastatin therapy results in a significant reduction in hs-CRP levels.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INTRAMUSCULAR ACETAMINOPHEN VERSUS INTRAMUSCULAR PENTAZOCINE AS LABOUR ANALGESIA IN ZARIA, NORTHWESTERN NIGERIA

BACKGROUND

Intramuscular pentazocine is a common labour analgesic in Zaria, Nigeria due to its low cost and availability. Though also cheap and readily available the use of intramuscular acetaminophen is not popular and hence the need for a comparative study.

AIM & OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of intramuscular acetaminophen versus intramuscular pentazocine on women in labour as well as the effects of both drugs on APGAR scores of their newborn.

METHODOLOGY

A randomized, comparative study was conducted on 188 eligible, parturients from June to September, 2013. The subjects were selected during antenatal classes and early active labour, counseled, taught about the pain scoring systems after obtaining written consent from them. Randomization was done using the WINPEPI software by Abrahamson in order for each woman in labour to receive either intramuscular acetaminophen 15mg/kg stat or pentazocine 1mg/kg at cervical dilatation of 4-6cm. The data obtained included the patients demographics, hourly pain scores, APGAR scores, patients' satisfaction and side effects.

RESULTS

The mean age was 28.1years ± SD 5.2years. The majority of the subjects (53.5%) were Hausa-Fulani and 70.1% were muslims; 64% were booked for antenatal care while 58.5% had received secondary school education. The average duration of labour was 5.4hours. Acetaminophen was administered to 91(48%) subjects while pentazocine was administered to 97(52%). Sixty-nine percent and 80% experienced adequate pain relief in the acetaminophen and pentazocine groups respectively at one hour. The pain scores was statistically significant at one hour but comparable in both groups afterwards: p=0.01, 0.52, 0.338 and 0.389 at 1(st), 2(nd), 3(rd) and 4(th) hours on the linear/visual analogue scale and comparable on the verbal rating scale. There was no difference in the 1(st) and 5(th) minute APGAR scores of the babies delivered (p=0.24 and 0.63 respectively). Patients' satisfaction was comparable but the pentazocine group experienced more side effects.

CONCLUSION

Intramuscular acetaminophen gave comparable labour analgesia with fewer side effects when compared with pentazocine.