PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the efficacy of intra-operative lidocaine hematoma block (HB) to ropivacaine HB and to compare the efficacy of different timings of ropivacaine HB in controlling post-operative pain in dogs undergoing the osteosynthesis of long-bone fractures.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized, blinded, prospective clinical study.
METHODS: Forty-eight dogs with long-bone fractures were included and were randomly allocated to four groups: lidocaine (L), ropivacaine (Rmid), ropivacaine pre- (Rpre) and ropivacaine post- (Rpost) groups.
METHODS: The dogs in group L (n = 14) and in group Rmid (n = 11) received a lidocaine or ropivacaine HB, respectively, after fracture reduction and before osteosynthesis material placement. Rpre dogs (n = 11) received ropivacaine HB before fracture reduction, and Rpost dogs (n = 12) received ropivacaine HB after osteosynthesis material placement. Eight post-operative pain assessments were performed using the University of Melbourne Pain Scale (UMPS) and an algometer. Rescue analgesia was administered based on UMPS scoring. For data analysis, the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality, chi-square, Student t test and Split Plot analysis were used. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05.
RESULTS: Rescue analgesia was administered to one dog in group L, one in group Rmid and one in group Rpost, with no significant differences detected. Compared to group Rmid, group L dogs exhibited significantly higher mean mechanical pain thresholds (p = 0.049) and lower mean UMPS scores (p = 0.001). Group Rpost dogs had statistically significantly higher mean pain thresholds compared to group Rmid (p = 0.009).
CONCLUSIONS: When performed after fracture reduction and before osteosynthesis material placement, lidocaine HB seems to be more effective than ropivacaine HB in controlling post-operative pain in dogs undergoing osteosynthesis of long-bone fractures. The administration of ropivacaine HB after osteosynthesis material placement seems to be more effective than administration after fracture reduction and before osteosynthesis material placement or administration before fracture reduction in controlling post-operative pain in dogs undergoing osteosynthesis of long-bone fractures.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized, blinded, prospective clinical study.
METHODS: Forty-eight dogs with long-bone fractures were included and were randomly allocated to four groups: lidocaine (L), ropivacaine (Rmid), ropivacaine pre- (Rpre) and ropivacaine post- (Rpost) groups.
METHODS: The dogs in group L (n = 14) and in group Rmid (n = 11) received a lidocaine or ropivacaine HB, respectively, after fracture reduction and before osteosynthesis material placement. Rpre dogs (n = 11) received ropivacaine HB before fracture reduction, and Rpost dogs (n = 12) received ropivacaine HB after osteosynthesis material placement. Eight post-operative pain assessments were performed using the University of Melbourne Pain Scale (UMPS) and an algometer. Rescue analgesia was administered based on UMPS scoring. For data analysis, the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality, chi-square, Student t test and Split Plot analysis were used. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05.
RESULTS: Rescue analgesia was administered to one dog in group L, one in group Rmid and one in group Rpost, with no significant differences detected. Compared to group Rmid, group L dogs exhibited significantly higher mean mechanical pain thresholds (p = 0.049) and lower mean UMPS scores (p = 0.001). Group Rpost dogs had statistically significantly higher mean pain thresholds compared to group Rmid (p = 0.009).
CONCLUSIONS: When performed after fracture reduction and before osteosynthesis material placement, lidocaine HB seems to be more effective than ropivacaine HB in controlling post-operative pain in dogs undergoing osteosynthesis of long-bone fractures. The administration of ropivacaine HB after osteosynthesis material placement seems to be more effective than administration after fracture reduction and before osteosynthesis material placement or administration before fracture reduction in controlling post-operative pain in dogs undergoing osteosynthesis of long-bone fractures.
摘要：
目的：我们旨在比较利多卡因血肿阻滞术（HB）与罗哌卡因HB术中的疗效，并比较不同时机罗哌卡因HB在控制长骨骨折接骨术犬术后疼痛中的疗效。
方法：我们进行了随机，失明,前瞻性临床研究。
方法：纳入48只长骨骨折犬，随机分为四组：利多卡因（L），罗哌卡因(Rmid),罗哌卡因前（Rpre）和罗哌卡因后（Rpost）组。
方法：L组（n=14）和Rmid组（n=11）的狗接受利多卡因或罗哌卡因HB，分别,骨折复位后和接骨术材料放置前。Rpre犬（n=11）在骨折复位前接受罗哌卡因HB，和Rpost犬（n=12）在骨接合材料放置后接受罗哌卡因HB。使用墨尔本大学疼痛量表（UMPS）和algometer进行了八次术后疼痛评估。根据UMPS评分进行抢救镇痛。对于数据分析，夏皮罗-威尔克正态检验,卡方,使用学生t检验和拆分图分析。显著性水平设定为α=0.05。
结果：对L组中的一只狗进行抢救镇痛，一个在Rmid组中，一个在Rpost组中，没有检测到显著差异。与Rmid组相比，L组犬表现出明显较高的平均机械性疼痛阈值（p=0.049）和较低的平均UMPS评分（p=0.001）。与Rmid组相比,Rpost组狗具有统计学上显著更高的平均疼痛阈值(p=0.009)。
结论：在骨折复位后和骨接合材料置入前进行时，利多卡因HB似乎比罗哌卡因HB更有效地控制了接受长骨骨折接骨术的狗的术后疼痛。在接受长骨骨折骨合成的狗中，骨合成材料放置后给予罗哌卡因HB似乎比骨折复位后和骨合成材料放置前给予或骨折复位前给予更有效。
方法：我们进行了随机，失明,前瞻性临床研究。
方法：纳入48只长骨骨折犬，随机分为四组：利多卡因（L），罗哌卡因(Rmid),罗哌卡因前（Rpre）和罗哌卡因后（Rpost）组。
方法：L组（n=14）和Rmid组（n=11）的狗接受利多卡因或罗哌卡因HB，分别,骨折复位后和接骨术材料放置前。Rpre犬（n=11）在骨折复位前接受罗哌卡因HB，和Rpost犬（n=12）在骨接合材料放置后接受罗哌卡因HB。使用墨尔本大学疼痛量表（UMPS）和algometer进行了八次术后疼痛评估。根据UMPS评分进行抢救镇痛。对于数据分析，夏皮罗-威尔克正态检验,卡方,使用学生t检验和拆分图分析。显著性水平设定为α=0.05。
结果：对L组中的一只狗进行抢救镇痛，一个在Rmid组中，一个在Rpost组中，没有检测到显著差异。与Rmid组相比，L组犬表现出明显较高的平均机械性疼痛阈值（p=0.049）和较低的平均UMPS评分（p=0.001）。与Rmid组相比,Rpost组狗具有统计学上显著更高的平均疼痛阈值(p=0.009)。
结论：在骨折复位后和骨接合材料置入前进行时，利多卡因HB似乎比罗哌卡因HB更有效地控制了接受长骨骨折接骨术的狗的术后疼痛。在接受长骨骨折骨合成的狗中，骨合成材料放置后给予罗哌卡因HB似乎比骨折复位后和骨合成材料放置前给予或骨折复位前给予更有效。
