nerve blocks

神经阻滞
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    在下腹部手术后的第一天报告了中度至重度的疼痛。没有研究比较腹横肌平面(TAP)阻滞与后椎板阻滞(RLB)在腹腔镜腹股沟疝手术中的术后疼痛缓解。
    在这个前景中,随机试验,美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)的42名男性患者的身体状况I和II,18-65岁,BMI<40kg/m2的患者在腹腔镜腹股沟疝手术后接受TAP或RLB。进行了标准的全身麻醉技术。患者被随机分为两组:单次TAP阻滞(I组)(n=21)或RLB(II组)(n=21),双侧20ml0.375%罗哌卡因。术后,静脉给予扑热息痛1g作为抢救镇痛。术后24小时累积视觉模拟评分(VAS)评分被认为是主要结果。
    术后24小时休息时的累积VAS评分,表示为平均值±S.D(95%CI),TAP阻滞组为3.54±3.04(2.16~4.93),RLB组为6.09±4.83(3.89~8.29).TAP阻滞组P值为0.112,运动VAS值为7.95±3.41(6.39~9.50[2.5~15.0]),而RLB组的P值为0.110,运动时的VAS值为10.83±5.51(8.32-13.34)。
    在接受TAP阻滞或RLB的患者中,术后24h运动时的累积疼痛评分相似。然而,术后18小时和24小时接受TAP阻滞的患者在休息和运动时的VAS评分降低。
    UNASSIGNED: Moderate-to-severe intensity pain is reported on the first day following lower abdominal surgery. No study has compared transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block with retrolaminar block (RLB) in laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery for postoperative pain relief.
    UNASSIGNED: In this prospective, randomized trial, 42 male patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II, aged 18-65 years, and having a BMI <40 kg/m2 received TAP or RLB following laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery. A standard general anesthetic technique was performed. Patients were randomized into two groups: single-shot TAP block (group I) (n = 21) or the RLB (group II) (n = 21) with bilateral 20 ml of 0.375% ropivacaine. Postoperatively, IV paracetamol 1 g was administered as rescue analgesia. Postoperative cumulative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score 24 hours after surgery was considered as the primary outcome.
    UNASSIGNED: Postoperative cumulative VAS score at rest at 24 h, represented as mean ± S.D (95% CI), in the TAP block group was 3.54 ± 3.04 (2.16-4.93) and in the RLB group was 6.09 ± 4.83 (3.89-8.29). P value was 0.112 and VAS on movement was 7.95 ± 3.41 (6.39-9.50 [2.5-15.0]) in TAP block group, whereas P value was 0.110 and VAS on movement was 10.83 ± 5.51 (8.32-13.34) in the RLB group.
    UNASSIGNED: Similar postoperative cumulative pain score on movement at 24 h was present in patients receiving TAP block or RLB. However, VAS score at rest and on movement was reduced in patients receiving TAP block at 18 and 24 h postoperatively.
    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
    脊柱和硬膜外阻滞通常用于在剖宫产期间和之后缓解疼痛。鞘内注射吗啡(ITM)多年来一直是相同的黄金标准。最近,许多外周神经阻滞(PNBs)已尝试用于剖宫产(PACD)术后镇痛.本文回顾了用于PACD的常见PNB。研究了PNB与ITM的作用,并探索了PACD的当前最佳策略。目前,已经发现髂腹股沟神经和腹前横肌平面阻滞联合鞘内注射吗啡是最有效的策略。与单独的ITM相比,在6小时提供更低的休息疼痛。在未接受鞘内注射吗啡的患者中,推荐的PNB是腹横肌平面阻滞,单次注射局部麻醉伤口浸润,或使用直肌筋膜下的导管持续浸润伤口。PNB建议用于PACD。它们具有阿片类药物保护作用,并且没有与中枢神经传导阻滞相关的不良反应,如低血压,心动过缓,和尿潴留。然而,由于需要大量的药物,必须谨慎观察PNB可能的局部麻醉毒性。
    Spinal and epidural blocks are commonly employed for pain relief during and following cesarean section. Intrathecal morphine (ITM) has been the gold standard for the same for many years. In recent times, many peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) have been tried for postoperative analgesia following cesarean delivery (PACD). This article has reviewed the common PNBs used for PACD. The role of PNBs along with ITM has been studied and the current best strategy for PACD has also been explored. Currently, Ilio-inguinal nerve and anterior transversus abdominis plane block in conjunction with intrathecal morphine have been found to be the most effective strategy, providing lower rest pain at 6 hours as compared to ITM alone. In patients not receiving intrathecal morphine, recommended PNBs are lateral transversus abdominis plane block, single shot local anesthetic wound infiltration, or continuous wound infiltration with catheter below rectus fascia. PNBs are recommended for PACD. They have an opioid-sparing effect and are devoid of adverse effects associated with central neuraxial blocks such as hypotension, bradycardia, and urine retention. However, caution must be observed with PNBs for possible local anesthetic toxicity due to the large volumes of drug required.
    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
    髋关节镜检查后的疼痛可能很严重,然而,我们缺乏非麻醉镇痛的共识方法。在这里,我们描述了髋关节镜检查的解剖要素以及我们对相关感觉神经支配的当前理解,这是评估局部区域镇痛技术的前奏。回顾了许多区域神经阻滞和局部麻醉浸润技术,包括2个较新的超声筋膜平面块。进一步研究有针对性,节省马达的方法,需要超声引导或直接手术可视化。
    Pain after hip arthroscopy can be severe, yet we lack a consensus method for non-narcotic analgesia. Here we describe anatomic elements of hip arthroscopy and our current understanding of the relevant sensory innervation as a prelude to the evaluation of locoregional analgesic techniques. Many regional nerve blocks and local anesthetic infiltration techniques are reviewed, including 2 newer ultrasound fascial plane blocks. Further study of targeted, motor-sparing approaches, either ultrasound-guided or under direct surgical visualization is needed.
    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
    使用改进的Delphi技术,一个由区域麻醉师组成的国际小组列出了区域麻醉的首要研究重点.未回答的研究问题列表是由超过500名麻醉师完成的问卷创建的,并提炼成11个优先事项,分为四个主题:临床实践和疗效。疼痛管理,技术和设备,培训和评估。
    Using a modified Delphi technique, an international group of regional anaesthetists generated a list of top research priorities in regional anaesthesia. The list of unanswered research questions was created from a questionnaire completed by >500 anaesthetists and distilled into 11 priorities grouped into four themes: clinical practice and efficacy, pain management, technology and equipment, and training and assessment.
    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
    目的:确定在一次门诊就诊过程中,并发周围神经阻滞和鼻甲毒素A治疗的耐受性和安全性。
    背景:程序性干预措施可用于治疗头痛疾病。作为口服治疗的替代或补充,可以使用促性腺激素A和周围神经阻滞来减少偏头痛发作的频率和强度。目前缺乏安全性数据,重点是在一次临床治疗头痛期间通过周围神经阻滞和局部麻醉药A的顺序给药。该研究的主要目的是确定在一次门诊就诊过程中同时注射周围神经阻滞和抑瘤霉素A的安全性和耐受性。我们假设慢性偏头痛和其他头痛患者的双重干预是安全且耐受性良好的。
    方法:使用来自一家门诊头痛诊所16个月内多个医疗服务提供者所见患者的临床数据进行回顾性图表回顾。通过程序代码确定患者,并且在研究期间的单次相遇期间接受周围神经阻滞和脑啡肽A注射的患者符合纳入条件。纳入标准为(1)18岁及以上的患者(2)同时接受周围神经阻滞和注射乙酰丙酸钠毒素A治疗慢性偏头痛。如果患者未满18岁,则将其排除在外,在诊所外接受手术(急诊室,住院病房),或者正在接受蝶腭神经节阻滞。年龄和性别匹配的患者接受了一次手术,无论是周围神经阻滞,还是脑啡肽A,用于控制。该安全性研究的主要结果是与单干预对照组相比,双重干预组发生的不良事件数量。通过回顾性图表审查收集有关不良事件的信息。如果记录了不良事件,然后由审稿人使用不良事件通用术语标准对其进行分级,范围从1级轻度事件到5级死亡.此外,观察到不良事件是否导致治疗中止.
    结果:总计,375名患者被认为符合纳入研究的条件。在对照组的年龄和性别匹配之后,131名接受双重干预的患者能够与131名接受单独的乙酰磺胺醇毒素A的患者进行比较,104名接受双重干预的患者能够与104名接受单独的周围神经阻滞的患者进行比较。主要终点分析显示,与单独的神经阻滞或单独的促性腺激素A相比,双重干预之间的总不良事件没有显着差异。在导致治疗终止的不良事件数量中,与接受双重干预的患者相比,接受双重干预的患者与单独使用单药磺胺醇钠的患者的不良事件数量接近但未达到统计学意义(4.6%,6/131vs.0.8%,1/131,p=0.065);然而,两组之间停止治疗的患者数量没有显着差异(2.3%,3/131vs.0.8%,1/131;p=0.314;比值比0.3[0-3.2];p=0.338)。
    结论:在这篇回顾性图表综述中,序贯接受外周神经阻滞和单用单用外周神经阻滞或单用单用单用外周神经阻滞的患者,在不良事件或治疗停止方面无显着差异.因此,我们得出的结论是,在常规临床实践中,联合治疗可能是安全且耐受性良好的.
    OBJECTIVE: To determine the tolerability and safety of concurrent peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA treatment during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit.
    BACKGROUND: Procedural interventions are available for the treatment of headache disorders. OnabotulinumtoxinA and peripheral nerve blocks are used as alternatives or in addition to oral therapies to reduce the frequency and intensity of migraine attacks. There is currently a lack of safety data focusing on the sequential administration of local anesthetic via peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA during a single clinical encounter for the treatment of headache. The primary aim of the study was to determine the safety and tolerability of concurrent peripheral nerve blockade and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. We hypothesized that the dual intervention would be safe and well tolerated by patients with chronic migraine and other headache disorders.
    METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed using clinical data from patients seen by multiple providers over a 16-month timeframe at one outpatient headache clinic. Patients were identified by procedure codes and those receiving peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single encounter within the study period were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients 18 years and older who were (2) receiving both peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of chronic migraine. Patients were excluded if they were under age 18, received their procedure outside of the clinic (emergency room, inpatient ward), or were receiving sphenopalatine ganglion blocks. Age- and sex-matched patients who received one procedure, either peripheral nerve blocks or onabotulinumtoxinA, were used for control. The primary outcome of this safety study was the number of adverse events that occurred in the dual intervention group compared to the single intervention control arms. Information regarding adverse events was gathered via retrospective chart review. If an adverse event was recorded, it was then graded by the reviewer utilizing the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ranging from Grade 1 Mild Event to Grade 5 Death. Additionally, it was noted whether the adverse event led to treatment discontinuation.
    RESULTS: In total, 375 patients were considered eligible for inclusion in the study. After age and sex matching of controls, 131 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 131 patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA alone and 104 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 104 patients receiving peripheral nerve block(s) alone. The primary endpoint analysis showed no significant difference in total adverse events between dual intervention compared to nerve blocks alone or onabotulinumtoxinA alone. The number of adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation approached but did not reach statistical significance for those receiving dual intervention versus onabotulinumtoxinA alone in the number of adverse events that led to treatment termination (4.6%, 6/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131, p = 0.065); however, the number of patients who discontinued therapy was not significantly different between those groups (2.3%, 3/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131; p = 0.314; odds ratio 0.3 [0-3.2]; p = 0.338).
    CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective chart review, there was no significant difference in adverse events or therapy discontinuation between patients receiving sequential peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections versus those receiving either peripheral nerve block(s) or onabotulinumtoxinA injections alone. As a result, we concluded that the combination procedure is likely safe and well tolerated in routine clinical practice.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • DOI:
    文章类型: Journal Article
    FDA最近批准Zynrelef®(布比卡因和美洛昔康的缓释粘性溶液)在闭合时使用,并提供72小时的术后镇痛。尽管FDA并未限制神经阻滞与该制剂的联合使用,这种联合用药的安全性和有效性尚待记录.这项质量改进研究在FDA批准的适应症中调查了这种组合。
    选择两家医院的外科医生使用Zynrelef®。根据护理标准,外科医生也被允许在手术前请求单神经阻滞。进行的神经阻滞类型(单侧或双侧)包括腹部手术的腰方肌阻滞和椎旁阻滞,和内收肌管阻滞用于全膝关节置换术。每个模块使用20mL的0.375%布比卡因(n=129)或0.5%的罗哌卡因(n=30)进行。疼痛评分,阿片类药物的消费,并记录出院时的处方补充要求。手术当天出院的患者分为两组-接受单神经阻滞加Zynrelef®的患者(第1组)与仅接受Zynrelef®治疗的患者(第2组)进行非配对t检验分析.
    共有184名患者接受了Zynrelef®治疗,包括25名没有接受阻断的患者,44人接受单边区块,114人接受双边区块。没有观察到提示局部麻醉剂毒性(LAST)的症状。该组合的使用与满足阿片类药物处方的患者数量减少50%相关。
    这项研究提供了证据,证明单个单侧或双侧神经阻滞与Zynrelef®的组合是安全的。
    UNASSIGNED: The FDA recently approved Zynrelef® (A viscous solution of extended release of bupivacaine and meloxicam) to be applied at closure and providing postoperative analgesia for 72 hrs. Although the FDA didn\'t restrict the use of nerve blocks in combination with this formulation, the safety and efficacy of such a combination has yet to be documented. This quality improvement study investigated this combination within the FDA-approved indications.
    UNASSIGNED: Selected surgeons at two hospitals were chosen to use Zynrelef®. According to the standard of care, surgeons were also allowed to request single nerve blocks before surgery. The type of nerve blocks (unilateral or bilateral) performed included quadratus lumborum and paravertebral blocks for abdominal surgery, and adductor canal block for total knee replacement. Each block was performed with 20 mL of 0.375% bupivacaine (n=129) or 0.5% of ropivacaine (n=30). Pain scores, opioid consumption, and prescription refill requests at discharge were recorded. Patients discharged on the same day of surgery were separated into two groups-those who received single nerve blocks plus an Zynrelef® (group 1) vs. those receiving Zynrelef® only (group 2) and was analyzed using an un-paired t-test.
    UNASSIGNED: A total of 184 patients received Zynrelef®, including 25 patients who didn\'t receive blocks, 44 who received unilateral blocks and 114 who received bilateral blocks. No symptoms suggestive of Local Anesthetic Toxicity (LAST) were observed. The use of the combination was associated with a 50% reduction in the number of patients filling their opioid prescription.
    UNASSIGNED: This study provides evidence that the combination of a single unilateral or bilateral nerve block with Zynrelef® is safe.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Clinical Trial, Phase III
    目的:为了研究疗效,安全,药效学,和脂质体布比卡因(LB)的药代动力学,通过超声引导的坐骨神经阻滞在pop窝接受骨切除术的参与者中。
    方法:两部分,随机化,双盲,主动对照试验(NCT05157841)。
    方法:手术室,麻醉后护理部门,和医疗保健设施(6个地点)。
    方法:美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分类≤3且体重指数≥18至<40kg/m2的成年人接受选择性远端干骨干端截骨术。
    方法:A部分参与者以1:1:1随机分配至LB266mg,LB133毫克,或盐酸布比卡因50mg(BUPI)。B部分参与者以1:1随机分配至LB(以A部分确定的剂量)或BUPI。
    方法:主要终点是手术后0-96小时的数字评定量表(NRS)疼痛强度评分的曲线下面积(AUC)。次要终点包括术后阿片类药物总消耗量,手术后0-96小时无阿片类药物状态,和药代动力学终点。
    结果:A部分每组登记22名参与者。在B部分,其他参与者被随机分为LB133mg(n=59)和BUPI(n=60)(共185例).LB133mg与BUPI相比,NRS疼痛强度评分的AUC显着降低(最小二乘平均值[LSM],207.4vs371.4;P<0.00001)和术后0-96小时的阿片类药物总消耗量(LSM,17.7[95%置信区间(CI),13.7,22.8]吗啡毫克当量[MME]对45.3[95%CI,35.1,58.5]MME;P<0.00001),无阿片类药物参与者的比例增加(24.4%对6%;比值比,A+B部分为5.04[95%CI,2.01,12.62];P=0.0003)。
    结论:经坐骨神经阻滞后在the窝给予LB133mg,与BUPI相比,手术后疼痛控制效果更好,持续时间更长。这些发现的临床相关性得到了术后4天内疼痛和阿片类药物消耗同时减少的支持,并且参与者中保持无阿片类药物的比例明显更高。
    To investigate the efficacy, safety, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) administered via ultrasound-guided sciatic nerve block in the popliteal fossa in participants undergoing bunionectomy.
    Two-part, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial (NCT05157841).
    Operating room, postanesthesia care unit, and health care facility (6 sites).
    Adults with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification ≤3 and body mass index ≥18 to <40 kg/m2 undergoing elective distal metaphyseal osteotomy.
    Part A participants were randomized 1:1:1 to LB 266 mg, LB 133 mg, or bupivacaine hydrochloride 50 mg (BUPI). Part B participants were randomized 1:1 to LB (at the dose established by part A) or BUPI.
    The primary endpoint was area under the curve (AUC) of numerical rating scale (NRS) pain intensity scores 0-96 h after surgery. Secondary endpoints included total postsurgical opioid consumption, opioid-free status 0-96 h after surgery, and pharmacokinetic endpoints.
    Part A enrolled 22 participants per group. In part B, additional participants were randomized to LB 133 mg (n = 59) and BUPI (n = 60) (185 total). LB 133 mg had significant reductions versus BUPI in the AUC of NRS pain intensity score (least squares mean [LSM], 207.4 vs 371.4; P < 0.00001) and total opioid consumption 0-96 h after surgery (LSM, 17.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), 13.7, 22.8] morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs] vs 45.3 [95% CI, 35.1, 58.5] MMEs; P < 0.00001) and an increased proportion of opioid-free participants (24.4% vs 6%; odds ratio, 5.04 [95% CI, 2.01, 12.62]; P = 0.0003) in parts A + B. Adverse events were similar across groups.
    LB 133 mg administered via sciatic nerve block in the popliteal fossa after bunionectomy demonstrated superior and long-lasting postsurgical pain control versus BUPI. The clinical relevance of these findings is supported by concurrent reductions in pain and opioid consumption over 4 days after surgery and a significantly greater percentage of participants remaining opioid-free.
    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
    目标:在急诊科(ED),超声引导下的神经阻滞(UGNBs)已成为多模式疼痛治疗方案的基石.我们调查了UGNB在学术医学中心ED的当前国家实践,以及这些趋势如何随着时间的推移而变化。
    方法:我们在美国各地与超声研究金一起对学术ED进行了横断面电子调查。探索UGNB实践模式的20项问卷,培训,并发症分布在2021年11月至2022年6月之间。数据是手动整理的,并进行描述性统计。然后将调查结果与Amini等人的结果进行比较。2016年UGNB调查以确定趋势。
    结果:反应率为80.5%(108个项目中有87个)。百分之百的响应程序在他们的机构执行UGNB,29%(95%置信区间(CI),20%-39%)每月至少执行5个区块。前臂UGNB是最常见的(96%的程序(95%CI,93%-100%))。骨折的疼痛控制是最常见的指征(84%;95%CI,76%-91%)。85%(95%CI,77%-92%)的项目报告至少80%的UGNB是有效的。百分之八十五(95%CI,66%-85%)的计划没有报告由其机构的急诊提供者进行的UGNB并发症。其余15%(95%CI,8%-23%)报告每年平均1次并发症。
    结论:参与我们研究的所有项目都报告在其ED中执行UGNB,比过去5年增长了16%。UGNB目前在ED中安全有效地执行,然而,实践仍然可以改进。在地方和国家层面建立多学科委员会可以规范指导方针和实践政策,以优化患者安全和结果。
    OBJECTIVE: In the Emergency Department (ED), ultrasound-guided nerve blocks (UGNBs) have become a cornerstone of multimodal pain regimens. We investigated current national practices of UGNBs across academic medical center EDs, and how these trends have changed over time.
    METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey of academic EDs with ultrasound fellowships across the United States. Twenty-item questionnaires exploring UGNB practice patterns, training, and complications were distributed between November 2021-June 2022. Data was manually curated, and descriptive statistics were performed. The survey results were then compared to results from Amini et al. 2016 UGNB survey to identify trends.
    RESULTS: The response rate was 80.5% (87 of 108 programs). One hundred percent of responding programs perform UGNB at their institutions, with 29% (95% confidence interval (CI), 20%-39%) performing at least 5 blocks monthly. Forearm UGNB are most commonly performed (96% of programs (95% CI, 93%-100%)). Pain control for fractures is the most common indication (84%; 95% CI, 76%-91%). Eighty-five percent (95% CI, 77%-92%) of programs report at least 80% of UGNB performed are effective. Eighty-five percent (95% CI, 66%-85%) of programs have had no reported complications from UGNB performed by emergency providers at their institution. The remaining 15% (95% CI, 8%-23%) report an average of 1 complication annually.
    CONCLUSIONS: All programs participating in our study report performing UGNB in their ED, which is a 16% increase over the last 5 years. UGNB\'s are currently performed safely and effectively in the ED, however practice improvements can still be made. Creating multi-disciplinary committees at local and national levels can standardize guidelines and practice policies to optimize patient safety and outcomes.
    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
    阿片类药物相关的死亡是美国意外死亡的主要原因。阑尾炎是儿童和青少年腹痛的常见原因。在儿科人群中,整个腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)的疼痛管理是一个至关重要的问题。本研究旨在评估LA术后镇痛药使用趋势和患者满意度,重点是减少疼痛管理对阿片类药物的依赖。从2003年到2023年,对18258篇文章进行了过滤,用于与LA一起使用的所有类型的镇痛药。使用系统审查和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南的首选报告项目筛选出版物。纳入19项研究进行分析和综述.该研究包括同行评审的实验和观察性研究,涉及18岁以下的个人。疼痛管理策略因研究而异,涉及镇痛药的组合,神经阻滞,和伤口浸润。镇痛药,如对乙酰氨基酚,非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs),和阿片类药物在手术前后给药。一些研究实施了患者自控镇痛(PCA)泵。其他研究探索了非药物干预措施,如磁针。结果显示,接受LA治疗的患者术后镇痛药的需求减少,特别是当使用非阿片类药物和新型镇痛技术时。接受加巴喷丁的儿科患者报告阿片类药物使用率较低,缩短住院时间,满意度高。然而,在某些情况下,对阿片类药物的依赖仍然很大,特别是腹膜炎患者需要更多的吗啡。儿科患者的疼痛管理是多方面的,包括术前和术后镇痛药,神经阻滞,PCA泵。在持续的阿片类药物流行的背景下,努力改善小儿LA后的疼痛管理,同时减少阿片类药物依赖是必不可少的。这项研究的发现强调了非阿片类镇痛药的潜在益处,神经阻滞,以及管理<18例阑尾切除术患者术后疼痛的替代方法。需要对疼痛管理方案进行进一步的研究和标准化,以确保最佳的患者预后并将阿片类药物相关并发症的风险降至最低。
    Opioid-related fatalities are a leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Appendicitis is a common cause of abdominal pain in children and adolescents. The management of pain throughout the laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in the pediatric population is a critical concern. This study aimed to evaluate trends in analgesic use and patient satisfaction following LA, with a focus on reducing the reliance on opioids for pain management. From 2003 to 2023, 18258 articles were filtered for all types of analgesic use with LA. The publications were screened using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and 19 studies were included for analysis and review. The study included peer-reviewed experimental and observational studies involving individuals under 18 years. Pain management strategies varied across studies, involving a combination of analgesics, nerve blocks, and wound infiltrations. Analgesics such as acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids were administered before and after surgery. Some studies implemented patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pumps. Other studies explored non-pharmacological interventions like magnetic acupuncture. The results showed a reduction in the need for postoperative analgesics in patients treated with LA, particularly when using non-opioid medications and novel analgesic techniques. Pediatric patients who received gabapentin reported lower opioid use, shorter hospital stays, and high satisfaction rates. However, the reliance on opioids remained significant in some cases, particularly among patients with peritonitis who required more morphine. Pain management in pediatric patients is multifaceted, involving preoperative and postoperative analgesics, nerve blocks, and PCA pumps. Efforts to improve pain management following pediatric LA while reducing opioid reliance are essential in the context of the ongoing opioid epidemic. The findings from this study highlight the potential benefits of non-opioid analgesics, nerve blocks, and alternative methods for managing postoperative pain in <18 appendectomy patients. Further research and standardization of pain management protocols are needed to ensure optimal patient outcomes and minimize the risk of opioid-related complications.
    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
    股神经阻滞是一种广泛使用的镇痛技术,用于股骨近端骨折手术的脊柱麻醉前定位。包膜神经群(PENG)阻滞是一种具有运动特性的较新技术。我们比较了这些块对患者脊柱麻醉的镇痛效果。
    在这项研究中,60例患者被随机分为PENG组(n=30)或股骨组(n=30)。执行块后,每10分钟使用视觉模拟评分(VAS)评分评估疼痛30分钟.主要目标是30分钟时疼痛的中位数[四分位距(IQR)]减少(动态VAS,15度被动肢体抬高)。次要目标是脊柱位置评分(EOSP),在定位过程中获得的角度,术后镇痛持续时间和股四头肌无力。
    两组的人口统计学具有可比性。30分钟后,PENG组和股骨组的中位VAS(IQR)为6(5-7),股骨组为5(5-6)(P=0.004).次要结果如患者获得的EOSP评分和角度具有可比性。在术后期间,PENG组患者的疼痛明显低于股骨组.PENG阻滞可延长镇痛时间。PENG阻滞后股四头肌无力显著降低(P<0.001)。
    PENG阻滞在股骨近端骨折手术的脊柱麻醉前提供比股骨阻滞更好的镇痛效果。术后镇痛时间也更长。
    UNASSIGNED: Femoral nerve block is a widely used analgesia technique for positioning before spinal anaesthesia for proximal femur fracture surgeries. Pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is a newer technique with motor-sparing characteristics. We compared the analgesic efficacy of these blocks for patient positioning for spinal anaesthesia.
    UNASSIGNED: In this study, 60 patients were randomised to either the PENG group (n = 30) or the femoral group (n = 30). After performing the block, the pain was assessed every 10 min using a visual analogue scale (VAS) score for 30 min. The primary objective was the median [interquartile range (IQR)] reduction in pain (dynamic VAS with 15-degree passive limb elevation) at 30 min. Secondary objectives were ease of spinal position score (EOSP), angle obtained during positioning, duration of postoperative analgesia and quadriceps weakness.
    UNASSIGNED: The demographics were comparable in both groups. After 30 min, the median (IQR) VAS was 6 (5-7) in the PENG group and 5 (5-6) in the femoral group (P = 0.004). Secondary outcomes such as EOSP score and angle obtained by patients were comparable. In the postoperative period, patients had significantly lower pain in the PENG group compared to the femoral group. The duration of analgesia was prolonged with PENG block. Quadriceps weakness was significantly low with PENG block (P < 0.001).
    UNASSIGNED: PENG block provides better analgesia than a femoral block before spinal anaesthesia for proximal femur fracture surgery. The postoperative duration of analgesia was also longer.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号