[Combined sciatic/3-in-1 block. III. Prilocaine 1% versus mepivacaine 1%].

IF 1.9 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Regional-Anaesthesie Pub Date : 1988-07-01
F Wagner, L Taeger
{"title":"[Combined sciatic/3-in-1 block. III. Prilocaine 1% versus mepivacaine 1%].","authors":"F Wagner,&nbsp;L Taeger","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In a randomized, double-blind study, the efficacy of prilocaine 1% (group 1, 30 patients) was compared to mepivacaine 1% (group 2, 30 patients). All patients had a combined sciatic/femoral block for surgery of the lower extremities; a tourniquet was applied in each case. In each patient the block was done using 50 ml of a 1% solution of local anesthetic: 20 ml for the sciatic and 30 ml for the 3-in-1 block. The time to onset of sensory block was approx. 4 min in both groups; the onset of motor blockade averaged 6 min and after 10-12 and 15 min sensory and motor blockades, respectively, were complete. On the average, patients were pain-free for 254 min with prilocaine and 267 min with mepivacaine. Four of 30 patients (= 13%) in group 1 an 6 of 30 patients (= 20%) in group 2 had an unsatisfactory blockade and had to be supplemented by analgesics or general anesthesia. The finding of a significant correlation between the voltage necessary for stimulation and the efficacy of the blockade underlines the importance of correct stimulation when identifying the nerves.</p>","PeriodicalId":77604,"journal":{"name":"Regional-Anaesthesie","volume":"11 3","pages":"61-4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"1988-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional-Anaesthesie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a randomized, double-blind study, the efficacy of prilocaine 1% (group 1, 30 patients) was compared to mepivacaine 1% (group 2, 30 patients). All patients had a combined sciatic/femoral block for surgery of the lower extremities; a tourniquet was applied in each case. In each patient the block was done using 50 ml of a 1% solution of local anesthetic: 20 ml for the sciatic and 30 ml for the 3-in-1 block. The time to onset of sensory block was approx. 4 min in both groups; the onset of motor blockade averaged 6 min and after 10-12 and 15 min sensory and motor blockades, respectively, were complete. On the average, patients were pain-free for 254 min with prilocaine and 267 min with mepivacaine. Four of 30 patients (= 13%) in group 1 an 6 of 30 patients (= 20%) in group 2 had an unsatisfactory blockade and had to be supplemented by analgesics or general anesthesia. The finding of a significant correlation between the voltage necessary for stimulation and the efficacy of the blockade underlines the importance of correct stimulation when identifying the nerves.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[联合坐骨/三合一块。31%普拉卡因对比1%美哌卡因]。
在一项随机双盲研究中,将1%丙洛卡因(1,30例患者)与1%甲哌卡因(2,30例患者)的疗效进行比较。所有患者下肢手术均采用坐骨/股联合阻滞;每个病例均使用止血带。在每个患者中,使用50ml 1%局麻药溶液进行阻滞:坐骨阻滞20ml,三合一阻滞30ml。感觉阻滞发生的时间约为。两组均为4 min;运动阻断的开始平均为6分钟,分别在10-12分钟和15分钟后,感觉和运动阻断完成。平均而言,使用丙胺卡因的患者无痛时间为254分钟,使用甲哌卡因的患者无痛时间为267分钟。1组30例患者中有4例(= 13%)阻滞不理想,2组30例患者中有6例(= 20%)阻滞不理想,需辅以镇痛药或全身麻醉。刺激所需的电压与阻断的有效性之间的显著相关性的发现强调了在识别神经时正确刺激的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
[An epidural spinal abscess as a lethal complication of peridural anesthesia]. [Knotting of a peridural catheter]. [A simple technique for estimating the level of analgesia in regional anesthesia]. [CSE--the combination of spinal and epidural anesthesia]. [Comments on the paper by R. Schürg et al. Maternal and neonatal plasma concentrations of bupivacaine during peridural anesthesia for cesarean section].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1