Regional analgesia

局部镇痛
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:胸膜中段横突阻滞(MTPB)是胸椎旁阻滞(TPVB)的一种新变体。这项研究旨在比较TPVB和MTPB在小儿中线胸骨切开术中对手术和术后镇痛的血流动力学应激反应的术中衰减。
    方法:单中心,随机化,控制,双盲,非自卑研究。
    方法:三级保健儿童医院。
    方法:我们招募了83名年龄在2-12岁的儿童,美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)的身体状态为II级,他们计划进行选择性的开放式心脏手术,并进行中线胸骨切开术,以修复简单的非紫癜性先天性心脏病。
    方法:符合条件的参与者以1:1的比例随机分为TPVB或MTPB组。在TPVB组中,患者于T4和T5时椎旁间隙双侧注射0.25%布比卡因0.4ml/kg.在MTPB组中,患者在T4和T5水平双侧注射0.4ml/kg0.25%布比卡因中横突和胸膜正后方肋上韧带.
    方法:主要结果是胸骨切开术的血流动力学反应,包括心率(HR)和有创平均动脉压(MAP),记录麻醉诱导前后,皮肤切开后,胸骨切开术后,体外循环(CPB)后15分钟,在胸骨闭合后.次要结果是执行双侧阻滞所需的时间,术中芬太尼消耗,术后芬太尼消耗,拔管后1、2、6、12、18和24小时测量的改良客观疼痛评分(MOPS),拔管时间,重症监护病房(ICU)出院时间,和非手术并发症的发生率(术后瘙痒,术后呕吐,气胸,血肿或局部麻醉毒性)。
    结果:在以下时间点,与MTPB组相比,TPVB组的HR和MAP没有显着差异:基线,诱导后,皮肤切开后,胸骨切开术后,CPB后15分钟,胸骨闭合后。HR和MAP的组间比较未显示两组之间的显着差异。进行双侧MTPB(7[6-8]min)所需的中位数(IQR)时间显着(p<0.001)短于TPVB(12[10-13]min)。TPVB和MTPB组的术中芬太尼消耗量和术后24h的芬太尼消耗量相似(4[2-4]vs4[2-4]和4.66±0.649vs4.88±1.082μg/kg),分别。TPVB和MTPB组的拔管时间和ICU出院时间具有可比性(2[1-3]vs2[1-3]h和21.2±2.5vs20.8±2.6h),分别。两组拔管后1、2、6、12、18和24h的MOPS疼痛评分相似。两组非手术并发症的发生率相似。
    结论:MTPB在减弱对有害手术刺激的术中血流动力学应激反应和减少围手术期阿片类药物消耗方面不劣于TPVB,拔管时间,和ICU出院时间。此外,MTPB在技术上比TPVB更容易,并且需要更少的执行时间。临床试验注册编号临床试验注册在泛非临床试验注册中心进行(PACTR202204901612169,批准日期01/04/2022,URLhttps://pactr。Samrc.AC.za/TrialDisplay。aspx?TrialID=22602)。
    OBJECTIVE: The mid point-transverse process to pleura block (MTPB) is a new variant of thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB). This study aimed to compare TPVB and MTPB with respect to intraoperative attenuation of the hemodynamic stress response to surgery and postoperative analgesia in pediatric open heart surgery with midline sternotomy.
    METHODS: A single-center, randomized, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority study.
    METHODS: Tertiary care children\'s university hospital.
    METHODS: We recruited 83 children aged 2-12 years of both sexes with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status class II who were scheduled for elective open cardiac surgeries with midline sternotomy for the repair of simple noncyanotic congenital heart defects.
    METHODS: Eligible participants were randomized into either the TPVB or MTPB groups at a ratio of 1:1. In the TPVB group, patients were bilaterally injected with 0.4 ml/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine in the paravertebral space at T4 and T5. In the MTPB group, patients were bilaterally injected with 0.4 ml/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine mid-transverse process and pleura just posterior to superior costotransverse ligament at the level of T4 and T5.
    METHODS: The primary outcome was the hemodynamic responses to sternotomy incision, including heart rate (HR) and invasive mean arterial pressure (MAP), recorded before and after the induction of anesthesia, after skin incision, after sternotomy, 15 min after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), and after the closure of the sternum. The secondary outcomes were time needed to perform the bilateral block, intraoperative fentanyl consumption, postoperative fentanyl consumption, modified objective pain score (MOPS) measured at 1, 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 h after extubation, extubation time, intensive care unit (ICU) discharge time, and the incidence of non-surgical complications (postoperative pruritus, postoperative vomiting, pneumothorax, hematoma or local anesthetic toxicity).
    RESULTS: There were no significant differences in HR and MAP in the TPVB group compared with the MTPB group at the following time points: baseline, after induction, after skin incision, after sternotomy, 15 min after CPB, and after sternal closure. Intergroup comparisons of HR and MAP did not reveal significant differences between the groups. The median (IQR) time needed to perform bilateral MTPB (7[6-8] min) was significantly (p < 0.001) shorter than that of TPVB (12[10-13] min). Intraoperative fentanyl consumption and fentanyl consumption in the first postoperative 24 h after extubation were similar in the TPVB and MTPB groups (4[2-4] vs 4[2-4] and 4.66 ± 0.649 vs 4.88 ± 1.082 μg/kg), respectively. Extubation time and ICU discharge time were comparable in the TPVB and MTPB groups (2[1-3] vs 2[1-3] h and 21.2 ± 2.5 vs 20.8 ± 2.6 h), respectively. Measurements of MOPS pain scores at 1, 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 h after extubation were similar in both groups. The incidence of nonsurgical complications was similar in both groups.
    CONCLUSIONS: MTPB is non-inferior to TPVB in attenuating the intraoperative hemodynamic stress response to noxious surgical stimuli and in reducing perioperative opioid consumption, extubation time, and ICU discharge time. Moreover, MTPB is technically easier than TPVB and requires less time to perform. Clinical trial registration number The clinical trial registration was prospectively performed at the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR202204901612169, approval date 01/04/2022, URL https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/TrialDisplay.aspx?TrialID=22602).
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:局部镇痛技术对于颈椎手术后的疼痛管理至关重要。麻醉师努力为宫颈区域选择最有效和最不危险的区域镇痛技术。我们的假设是,与接受颈椎前路手术的患者相比,中间颈丛(IC)阻滞可以提供足够的术后镇痛。
    方法:在这项双盲前瞻性试验中,在全身麻醉之前,将58例患者随机分为两个相等的组。IC组(n=29)的患者接受了超声引导的双侧中间颈丛阻滞,每侧给予15ml0.25%的布比卡因。ES组(n=29)接受了超声引导的双侧宫颈竖脊肌平面阻滞,在C6水平的两侧分别给予15ml0.25%布比卡因。主要结果是记录到第一次呼叫抢救镇痛(纳布啡)的时间,次要结果是衡量绩效时间,感觉阻滞的开始,术中芬太尼的消耗,使用VAS的术后疼痛强度,术后纳布啡的总消耗量,术后并发症如恶心,呕吐,低血压,和心动过缓.
    结果:与ES组相比,IC组的表现和感觉阻滞开始时间明显缩短。与ES组(11.10±1.82h)相比,IC组首次调用纳布啡的时间(7.31±1.34h)明显缩短。两组在测量时间点的平均术后VAS评分具有可比性,除了在8小时,在IC组中明显更高,在12小时,在ES组中明显更高。IC组纳布啡的总消耗量(33.1±10.13mg)明显高于ES组(22.76±8.62mg)。
    结论:对于接受颈椎前路手术的患者,中间颈丛阻滞与颈勃起脊髓阻滞相比,不能提供更好的术后区域镇痛。IC组的表现时间和起效时间较短,而ES组的纳布啡消费量较低。
    背景:该试验已在clinicaltrials.gov注册。(NCT05577559,注册日期:13-10-2022)。
    BACKGROUND: Regional analgesia techniques are crucial for pain management after cervical spine surgeries. Anesthesiologists strive to select the most effective and least hazardous regional analgesia technique for the cervical region. Our hypothesis is that an intermediate cervical plexus (IC) block can provide adequate postoperative analgesia compared to a cervical erector spinae (ES) block in patients undergoing anterior cervical spine surgery.
    METHODS: In this double-blind prospective trial, 58 patients were randomly assigned into two equal groups prior to the administration of general anesthesia. Patients in the IC group (n = 29) underwent ultrasound-guided bilateral intermediate cervical plexus block with 15 ml of bupivacaine 0.25% administered to each side. The ES group (n = 29) underwent ultrasound-guided bilateral cervical erector spinae plane blocks with 15 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine administered to each side at the C6 level. The primary outcome was to record the time to the first call for rescue analgesia (nalbuphine), and the secondary outcomes were to measure the performance time, the onset of the sensory block, the intraoperative fentanyl consumption, postoperative pain intensity using VAS, the postoperative total nalbuphine consumption, and postoperative complications such as nausea, vomiting, hypotension, and bradycardia.
    RESULTS: The performance and onset of sensory block times were significantly shorter in the IC group compared to the ES group. The time to first call for nalbuphine was significantly shorter in the IC group (7.31 ± 1.34 h) compared to the ES group (11.10 ± 1.82 h). The mean postoperative VAS scores were comparable between the two groups at the measured time points, except at 8 h, where it was significantly higher in the IC group, and at 12 h, where it was significantly higher in the ES group. The total nalbuphine consumption was significantly higher in the IC group (33.1 ± 10.13 mg) compared to the ES group (22.76 ± 8.62 mg).
    CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing anterior cervical spine surgery, the intermediate cervical plexus block does not provide better postoperative regional analgesia compared to the cervical erector spinae block. Performance time and onset time were shorter in the IC group, whereas nalbuphine consumption was lower in the ES group.
    BACKGROUND: The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov. (NCT05577559, and the date of registration: 13-10-2022).
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:区域块,如胸段硬膜外镇痛(TEA),胸椎旁阻滞(TPVB),或前锯肌平面阻滞(SAPB)在最近的指南中被建议减少术后阿片类药物的使用,但术中阿片类药物最小化的最佳选择仍不清楚.这项研究的目的是评估三种区域阻滞的术中阿片类药物的节制效果(TEA,TPVB,和SAPB)在接受电视胸腔镜手术(VAT)的患者中。
    方法:这是对2020年1月至2022年2月在三级医疗中心接受VAT的成年人的回顾性研究。根据使用的区域区块类型,患者分为4组:GA组(全身麻醉,无任何区域阻滞),TEA组(全麻复合TEA),TPVB组(全麻复合TPVB),SAPB组(全麻复合SAPB)。病例以1:1:1:1的比例进行匹配,以按年龄进行分析,性别,ASA物理状态,和操作持续时间。主要结果是术中阿片类药物的总消耗标准化为口服吗啡当量(OME)。使用多变量线性回归来估计三个区域块与OME的关联。
    结果:共有2159例符合资格标准。匹配后,168例(每组42例)纳入分析。与没有任何区域块的GA相比,茶的使用,TPVB,SAPB将术中OME的中位数降低了78.45mg(95%置信区间[CI],-141.34至-15.56;P=0.014),94.92毫克(95%CI,-154.48至-35.36;P=0.020),和11.47毫克(95%CI,-72.07至49.14;P=0.711),分别。
    结论:使用TEA或TPVB与术中保留阿片类药物的作用有关,而术中SAPB的阿片类药物保护作用尚不清楚。
    BACKGROUND: Regional block, such as thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA), thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB), or serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) has been recommended to reduce postoperative opioid use in recent guidelines, but the optimal options for intraoperative opioid minimization remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the intraoperative opioids-sparing effects of three regional blocks (TEA, TPVB, and SAPB) in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATs).
    METHODS: This was a retrospective study of the adults undergoing VATs at a tertiary medical center between January 2020 and February 2022. According to the type of regional block used, patients were classified into 4 groups: GA group (general anesthesia without any regional block), TEA group (general anesthesia combined with TEA), TPVB group (general anesthesia combined with TPVB), and SAPB group (general anesthesia combined with SAPB). Cases were matched with a 1:1:1:1 ratio for analysis by age, sex, ASA physical status, and operation duration. The primary outcome was the total intraoperative opioid consumption standardized to Oral Morphine Equivalents (OME). Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate the association of the three regional blocks with the OME.
    RESULTS: A total of 2159 cases met the eligibility criteria. After matching, 168 cases (42 in each group) were included in analysis. Compared with GA without any reginal block, the use of TEA, TPVB, and SAPB reduced the median of intraoperative OME by 78.45 mg (95% confidence interval [CI], -141.34 to -15.56; P = 0.014), 94.92 mg (95% CI, -154.48 to -35.36; P = 0.020), and 11.47 mg (95% CI, -72.07 to 49.14; P = 0.711), respectively.
    CONCLUSIONS: The use of TEA or TPVB was associated with an intraoperative opioid-sparing effect in adults undergoing VATs, whereas the intraoperative opioid-sparing effect of SAPB was not yet clear.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    腰丛神经阻滞(LPBs)通常用于髋部骨折手术的镇痛;然而,一种新的区域技术,囊周神经群(PENG)阻滞,可能提供类似的疼痛减轻,同时保持运动功能。接受髋部骨折手术的45-90岁患者被分配接受PENG阻滞或LPB镇痛。主要结果是术后12小时股四头肌运动阻滞(定义为膝关节伸展麻痹或瘫痪)的发生率。次要结果包括表现时间,第一次镇痛需求的时间,术后静脉注射(IV)芬太尼,在24和48小时接受物理治疗的能力,并发症,感觉和运动阻滞评估,术后数字评定量表(NRS)疼痛评分,和患者结果问卷。在6h时,股四头肌运动阻滞的发生率显着降低(26.7%vs.80.0%;p<0.001)和12小时时(20.0%vs.56.7%;p=0.010)。PENG阻滞提供了更好的感觉阻滞保存以及更好的表现时间(p<0.001)和时间到第一次镇痛要求(p=0.034),而LPB导致术后24h静脉内芬太尼消耗量降低(p=0.013).PENG阻滞在保持股四头肌力量和患者满意度方面优于LPB,没有任何实质性并发症。尽管在术后前24小时内阿片类药物的消费量较高。
    Lumbar plexus blocks (LPBs) are routinely employed for analgesia in hip fracture surgery; however, a novel regional technique, the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block, potentially offers comparable pain reduction while preserving motor function. Patients aged 45-90 years who underwent hip fracture surgery were allocated to receive either a PENG block or an LPB for analgesia. The primary outcome was the incidence of quadriceps motor block (defined as the paresis or paralysis of the knee extension) at 12 h postoperatively. The secondary outcomes included the performance time, the time to first analgesic requirement, postoperative intravenous (IV) fentanyl consumption, the ability to undergo physiotherapy at 24 and 48 h, complications, sensory and motor block assessments, postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores, and patient outcome questionnaires. There was a significantly lower incidence of quadriceps motor block at 6 h (26.7% vs. 80.0%; p < 0.001) and at 12 h (20.0% vs. 56.7%; p = 0.010). The PENG block provided better preservation of the sensory block as well as better performance time (p < 0.001) and time to first analgesia requirement (p = 0.034), whereas the LPB resulted in lower postoperative IV fentanyl consumption at 24 h (p = 0.013). The PENG block demonstrated superiority over the LPB in preserving quadriceps strength and patient satisfaction without any substantial complications, despite higher opioid consumption within the first 24 h post-surgery.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    本研究比较了外科伤口导管(SWC),股神经阻滞(FNB),内收肌管阻滞(ACB)用于膝关节置换术后镇痛。
    该研究包括(180)名计划进行单侧全膝关节置换的患者,并随机分为三组。患者通过SWC连续输注0.2%罗哌卡因(10ml推注,然后连续输注5ml/小时)接受术后镇痛,FNB,或ACB组。所有组均采用患者自控镇痛,通过静脉吗啡进行辅助镇痛。在休息和运动过程中评估疼痛评分,最差和最小的疼痛分数,以及在最初72小时内疼痛最严重的频率。还记录了患者的功能活动和满意度。
    研究表明,与基线评分相比,所有组的静息和运动过程中的疼痛评分均显着降低。与SWC组相比,ACB和FNB组的疼痛评分均显著降低(P<0.05)。最严重的疼痛评分分别为(6.15±2.9,5.85±2.7和5.025±1.513),最小疼痛评分(2.06±0.72,1.92±1.34和1.89±1.76),SWC中最严重疼痛的时间百分比(17.67±9.15、11.42±7.50和9.8.8±8.14)和总吗啡消耗量(39.24±6.82、34.55±7.86和26.40±8.47mg),FNB,和ACB组,分别。功能评估和患者满意度,在6和24小时,ACB明显更好,其次是SWC,最后是FNB组(P<0.5)。不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。SWC的局部麻醉药泄漏是骨科医生的持续关注。
    在效率方面,ACB在缓解疼痛方面提供了最高质量的镇痛,功能活动,和病人的满意度。与SWC相比,ACB和FNB都提供了更高的镇痛质量。而与FNB相比,ACB和SWC提供了更好的功能改进。
    UNASSIGNED: The present study compared the surgical wound catheter (SWC), femoral nerve block (FNB), and adductor canal block (ACB) for postoperative analgesia after knee arthroplasty.
    UNASSIGNED: The study included (180) patients scheduled for unilateral total knee replacement and were randomly allocated into three groups. Patients received postoperative analgesia via continuous infusion of ropivacaine 0.2% (10 ml bolus followed by continuous infusion of 5 ml/hour) through the SWC, FNB, or ACB groups. All groups received supplemental analgesia by IV morphine using patient controlled analgesia. Pain scores were assessed at rest and during movements, the worst and least pain scores, and how often were in worst pain during the first 72 hours. The functional activity and patient\'s satisfaction were also recorded.
    UNASSIGNED: The study showed significant reductions in pain scores at rest and during movements in all groups compared to the baseline scores. Significant reductions in pain scores were observed in both ACB and FNB groups compared to the SWC group (P < 0.05). The worst pain scores were (6.15 ± 2.9, 5.85 ± 2.7, and 5.025 ± 1.513), least pain scores (2.06 ± 0.72, 1.92 ± 1.34 and 1.89 ± 1.76), percentage of time in worst pain (17.67 ± 9.15, 11.42 ± 7.50, and 9.8.8 ± 8.14) and the total morphine consumption (39.24 ± 6.82, 34.55 ± 7.86, and 26.40 ± 8.47 mg) in the SWC, FNB, and ACB groups, respectively. Functional assessments and patient\'s satisfaction, at 6 and 24 hours, were significantly better in ACB followed by SWC, and lastly FNB group (P < 0.5). No significant differences in the incidence of side effects (P > 0.05). Local anesthetic leak from the SWC was a continuous concern by the orthopedic surgeons.
    UNASSIGNED: In terms of efficiency, ACB provided the highest quality of analgesia in terms of pain relief, functional activity, and patient\'s satisfaction. Both ACB and FNB provided higher quality of analgesia compared to the SWC. While ACB and SWC provided better functional improvements compared to FNB.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Randomized Controlled Trial
    背景:前路腰椎间融合术(ALIF)是一种通过前路的腰椎关节固定术,其侵入性比后路小。然而,它与腹壁的特定疼痛有关。
    目的:本研究的目的是确定双侧超声引导下腹横肌(TAP)阻滞是否可以减少术后24小时内的吗啡用量。
    方法:本研究是一项前瞻性单中心,随机化,双盲研究.
    方法:将接受ALIF手术的患者随机分为两组。两组均在手术结束时用罗哌卡因或安慰剂进行TAP阻滞。
    方法:主要结局指标是前24小时的吗啡消耗量。主要次要结果是术后即刻疼痛和阿片类药物相关的副作用。
    方法:术中和术后麻醉和镇痛方案标准化。根据其分配组,使用每侧75mg(15mL)罗哌卡因或等渗盐水血清进行双侧超声引导的TAP阻滞。
    结果:42例患者纳入研究(每组21例)。24小时时的吗啡消耗量(罗哌卡因组28mg[18-35]与安慰剂组25mg[19-37](p=.503))在两组之间没有显着差异。
    结论:与ALIF的多模式镇痛方案相关时,罗哌卡因或安慰剂的TAP阻滞提供了类似的术后镇痛。
    Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a lumbar arthrodesis technique via an anterior approach that is less invasive than the posterior approaches. However, it is associated with specific pain in the abdominal wall.
    The objective of this study was to determine whether performing a bilateral ultrasound-guided Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block allows a reduction in morphine consumption in the first 24 hours after surgery.
    This study is a prospective single-center, randomized, double-blind study.
    Patients undergoing ALIF surgery were included and randomized into two groups. Both groups received a TAP block performed at the end of surgery with either ropivacaine or placebo.
    The primary outcome measure was morphine consumption in the first 24 hours. The main secondary outcomes were immediate postoperative pain and opioid-related side effects.
    Intra- and postoperative anesthesia and analgesia protocols where standardized. A bilateral ultrasound-guided TAP block was performed with 75 mg (in 15 mL) of ropivacaine per side or isotonic saline serum depending on their assignment group.
    Forty-two patients were included in the study (21 per group). Morphine consumption at 24 hours (28 mg [18-35] in the ropivacaine group versus 25 mg [19-37] in the placebo group [p=.503]) were not significantly different between the two groups.
    TAP block with ropivacaine or placebo provided a similar postoperative analgesia when associated with a multimodal analgesia protocol for ALIF.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:严重的术后疼痛和不活动会增加住院时间和与不活动相关的危及生命的并发症。包膜神经组(PENG)阻滞是股骨颈(NoF)骨折疼痛管理的最新补充,已将其用作THR的替代镇痛或其他区域镇痛技术的辅助手段。本研究主要旨在评估术后活动能力。测量的次要结果是住院时间,疼痛评分,阿片类药物的消费,和副作用。方法对50例原发性THR患者进行回顾性研究。28例患者在脊髓麻醉后接受PENG阻滞(PENG组),7例患者术后进行了全身麻醉(GA)和患者自控镇痛(PCA)(PCA组),其余15人接受脊髓麻醉加髂筋膜阻滞(FIB组)。手术结束后10小时,所有患者都尝试动员(站立和步行几步的能力)。数据收集平均术后疼痛评分,动员时间,阿片类药物总消费量(直到出院),阿片类药物相关的副作用,和放电时间。结果所有患者在手术结束后10小时尝试动员,不管他们的麻醉技术。在PENG集团,26名患者(n=28)在没有阿片类药物的第一个10小时后可以动员。与FIB和GAPCA患者相比,PENG组患者出院前的总吗啡需求量明显减少。与所有其他组相比,PENG组的平均出院时间(小时)(22.1/-4.9)也显着更低(31.7/-3.4,p=<0.01)。PENG组在最初48小时内的平均术后疼痛评分明显较低。结论PENG阻滞有助于THR术后早期动员和恢复。
    Background Severe postoperative pain and immobility increase the length of hospital stay and immobility-related life-threatening complications after total hip replacement (THR). Pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is a recent addition to pain management of neck of femur (NoF) fracture, the use of which has been incorporated into THR as alternative analgesia or as an adjunct with other regional analgesia techniques. The present study primarily aims to assess postoperative mobility. Secondary outcomes measured were the length of hospital stay, pain score, opioid consumption, and side effects. Methods This is a retrospective study of 50 patients who underwent primary THR. Twenty-eight patients received PENG block after spinal anesthesia (PENG Group), seven patients had general anesthesia (GA) with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) postoperatively (PCA Group), and the remaining 15 received spinal anesthesia with fascia iliaca block (FIB Group). Mobilization was attempted in all patients (ability to stand and walk a few steps with a walker) 10 hours after the end of surgery. Data was collected for average postoperative pain score, time of mobilization, total opioid consumption (till discharge from the hospital), opioid-related side effects, and time of discharge. Results Mobilization was attempted in all patients 10 hours after the end of the surgery, irrespective of their anesthetic technique. In the PENG Group, 26 patients (n=28) could be mobilized after the first 10 hours without opioids. The total morphine requirement until discharge was significantly less in the PENG Group of patients compared to the FIB and GA+PCA patients. The average time of discharge (hours) from the hospital (22.1+/-4.9) was also significantly lower in the PENG Group compared to all other groups (31.7 +/- 3.4, p=<0.01). The average postoperative pain score was significantly low in the PENG Group within the first 48 hours. Conclusion The PENG block helps in early mobilization and enhanced recovery after THR.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    足囊神经组(PENG)阻滞是一种新颖的区域镇痛技术,可在髋关节手术患者中改善镇痛效果,同时保留运动功能。在这项研究中,研究了PENG阻滞在选择性全髋关节置换术(THA)中的镇痛作用。
    在这项多中心双盲随机对照试验中,除了脊髓麻醉和局部浸润镇痛(LIA),THA患者接受PENG阻滞或假阻滞。主要结果是术后3小时(第0天)的疼痛评分(数字等级量表0-10)。次要结果是术后股四头肌肌力,术后第1天疼痛评分,阿片类药物的使用,并发症,住院时间,和患者报告的结果指标。
    将60例患者随机分组,并在组间进行平均分配。基线人口统计学相似。术后第0天,与假手术组相比,PENG组的疼痛较少(PENG:14(47%)患者无疼痛,14(47%)轻度疼痛,2(6%)中度/重度疼痛与假:6(20%)无疼痛,14(47%)轻度疼痛,10(33%)中度/重度疼痛;p=0.03)。第0天各组股四头肌肌力无差异(PENG:23(77%)完整与假:24(80%)完整;p=0.24),其他次要结局无差异。
    在选择性THA中接受PENG阻滞镇痛的患者在第0天术后疼痛较少,保留股四头肌肌力。尽管有这些短期的好处,未检测到恢复质量或更持久的术后效果.
    BACKGROUND: The PEricapsular Nerve Group (PENG) block is a novel regional analgesia technique that provides improved analgesia in patients undergoing hip surgery while preserving motor function. In this study the PENG block was investigated for analgesia in elective total hip arthroplasty (THA).
    METHODS: In this multi-centre double-blinded randomized-controlled trial, in addition to spinal anesthesia and local infiltration analgesia (LIA), THA patients received either a PENG block or a sham block. The primary outcome was pain score (numeric rating scale 0-10) 3 h postoperatively (Day 0). Secondary outcomes were postoperative quadriceps muscle strength, postoperative Day 1 pain scores, opiate use, complications, length of hospital stay, and patient-reported outcome measures.
    RESULTS: Sixty patients were randomized and equally allocated between groups. Baseline demographics were similar. Postoperative Day 0, the PENG group experienced less pain compared to the sham group (PENG: 14 (47%) patients no pain, 14 (47%) mild pain, 2 (6%) moderate/severe pain versus sham: 6 (20%) no pain, 14 (47%) mild pain, 10 (33%) moderate/severe pain; p = 0.03). There was no difference in quadriceps muscle strength between groups on Day 0 (PENG: 23 (77%) intact versus sham: 24 (80%) intact; p = 0.24) and there were no differences in other secondary outcomes.
    CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving a PENG block for analgesia in elective THA experience less postoperative pain on Day 0 with preservation of quadriceps muscle strength. Despite these short-term benefits, no quality of recovery or longer lasting postoperative effects were detected.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    UNASSIGNED:我们旨在探讨保留阿片类药物的麻醉对患者胸腔镜手术(VATS)后恢复质量的影响。我们测试了一个主要假设,即与VATS中的常规麻醉相比,我们预定义的阿片类药物保留麻醉可提供更好的患者恢复质量。
    未经证实:18至70岁的患者,预定选修VATS,在全身麻醉下有美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)I-III级,随机分为:常规麻醉组和阿片类药物保留麻醉组。保留阿片类麻醉组患者术前主要给予胸椎旁阻滞,术中保留长效阿片类药物。常规麻醉组患者接受阿片类药物麻醉。主要结果是手术后6小时的恢复质量-15量表(QoR-15)。次要结果包括手术后24小时和48小时的QoR-15,术后6、24和48小时疼痛治疗(OBAS)和急性疼痛强度的镇痛评分的总获益,和手术后恢复的临床结果。
    UNASSIGNED:最终分析共纳入159例患者。保留阿片类药物麻醉和常规麻醉的QoR-15的中位数差异在6小时为4(95%CI:1-6),术后24小时8例(95%CI:4-12),术后48小时4.7例(95%CI:1-6);保留阿片类药物麻醉组73.4%的患者恢复良好,术后24小时常规麻醉组为53.8%(P=0.01)。术后各时间点保留阿片类药物麻醉组OBAS均低于常规麻醉组(P<0.05)。术后6小时和48小时,保留阿片类药物麻醉组的最大疼痛明显低于常规麻醉(P<0.05)。保留阿片类药物麻醉的患者在动员时间和首次排气时间上恢复较快(P<0.01)。
    UNASSIGNED:我们的术中阿片类药物保留麻醉不能改善患者在VATS肺手术后6小时的恢复,但与常规麻醉相比,它在手术后24小时显示出更好的结果,达到临床上重要的差异。
    UASSIGNED:本研究已在中国临床试验注册中心注册,ChiCTR2000031609。
    UNASSIGNED: We aimed to explore the impact of opioid-sparing anesthesia on patients\' quality of recovery after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). We tested the primary hypothesis that our predefined opioid-sparing anesthesia provides better quality of patients\' recovery compared to routine anesthesia in VATS.
    UNASSIGNED: Patients between 18 and 70 years, scheduled for elective VATS, had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I-III under general anesthesia, were randomly allocated to: routine anesthesia group and opioid-sparing anesthesia group. Patients in the opioid-sparing anesthesia group were mainly given preoperative thoracic paravertebral blockade with intraoperative withholding longer acting opioids. Patients in routine anesthesia group received opioid-based anesthesia. The primary outcome was the Quality of Recovery-15 scale (QoR-15) at 6 hours after surgery. The secondary outcomes included QoR-15 at 24 and 48 hours after surgery, Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score Satisfaction with pain treatment (OBAS) and acute pain intensity at 6, 24 and 48 hours after surgery, and clinical outcomes of recovery after surgery.
    UNASSIGNED: A total of 159 patients were included in final analysis. The median difference in QoR-15 between opioid-sparing anesthesia and routine anesthesia was 4 (95% CI: 1-6) at 6 hours, 8 (95% CI: 4-12) at 24 hours and 4.7 (95% CI: 1-6) at 48 hours after surgery respectively; 73.4% of patient showed good recovery in opioid-sparing anesthesia group, compared to 53.8% in routine anesthesia group at 24 hours after surgery (P=0.01). Patients demonstrated lower OBAS in opioid-sparing anesthesia group compared to routine anesthesia at all time points after surgery (P<0.05). The pain at most was significantly lower in opioid-sparing anesthesia group compared to routine anesthesia at 6 and 48 hours after surgery (P<0.05). Patients exhibited faster recovery with opioid-sparing anesthesia on time to mobilize and time to first flatus (P<0.01).
    UNASSIGNED: Our intraoperative opioid-sparing anesthesia cannot improve patients\' recovery at 6 hours after VATS lung surgery, but it demonstrates better outcomes at 24 hours after surgery compared to routine anesthesia, reaching to a clinically important difference.
    UNASSIGNED: This study is registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000031609.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    本研究的目的是从外科医生的角度评估腹腔镜妇科手术在区域麻醉(RA)中的可行性和围手术期结果,麻醉师和病人。这是一项前瞻性队列研究,包括计划在那不勒斯FedericoII大学三级保健妇科中心接受妇科腹腔镜手术治疗良性病理的66名妇女。妇女被分配,根据他们的喜好,RA(A组)或全身麻醉(GA)(B组)。外科,记录麻醉和术后恢复数据.术后疼痛被认为是主要结果。次要结果包括动员,住院时间,全球外科医生和患者满意度,A组的术中疼痛评估,A组的术后即刻疼痛0明显低于2(p<0.001),在24小时无显著差异。次要结果显示早期患者的动员(p<0.001)以及早期出院(p<0.001)和更高的患者对A组的满意度。在这些患者中,在整个手术中记录到5分中的3分的最大疼痛评分.RA可降低手术压力的影响,并确保更快的恢复而不损害手术效果。尽管可以采用几种手术方法来治疗不同的疾病,RA技术可能是选择良好的妇科疾病患者的可行选择。
    The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility and the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic gynecological surgery in regional anesthesia (RA) from the point of view of the surgeon, anesthesiologist and patient. This is a prospective cohort study comprising sixty-six women planned to undergo gynecologic laparoscopy surgery for benign pathology at tertiary care gynecolgical center of the University Federico II of Naples. Women were assigned, according to their preference, to either RA (Group A) or general anesthesia (GA) (Group B). Surgical, anesthesiologic and postoperative recovery data were recorded. Postoperative pain was considered as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included mobilization, length of hospital stay, global surgeons and patient satisfaction, intraoperative pain assessment in Group A. Immediate postoperative pain was significantly lower in Group A 0 vs 2 (p < 0.001), with no significant differences at 24 h. The secondary outcome demonstrated early patient\'s mobilization (p < 0.001) as well as early discharge (p < 0.001) and greater patient\'s satisfaction for the Group A. In these patients, a maximum pain score of 3 points out of 5 was recorded through the entire surgery. RA showed to decrease the impact of surgical stress and to guarantee a quicker recovery without compromising surgical results. Although several surgical approaches can be employed to treat different conditions, RA technique could be a viable option for well-selected patients affected by gynecological diseases.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号