The Effect of Two Different Doses Protocol of Bupivacaine for Femoral Block on Postoperative Analgesia: A Retrospective Analysis of Single Center Data

Q4 Medicine Anestezi Dergisi Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.5222/jarss.2021.68553
A. Selvi, Gökhan Yılıdız, Erbil Türksal, Rıdvan Özbek, M. C. Okkaoğlu, Esra Özayar
{"title":"The Effect of Two Different Doses Protocol of Bupivacaine for Femoral Block on Postoperative Analgesia: A Retrospective Analysis of Single Center Data","authors":"A. Selvi, Gökhan Yılıdız, Erbil Türksal, Rıdvan Özbek, M. C. Okkaoğlu, Esra Özayar","doi":"10.5222/jarss.2021.68553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: In our study, we aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy, side effect profile and its effect on opioid consumption of the femoral nerve block applied with different concentrations of local anesthetic agents (%0.5 bupivacaine and %0.25 bupivacaine) in the same volume (20 mL) after total knee replacement (TKR) operation. METHODS: The files of patients who underwent unilateral TKR surgery under spinal anesthesia between August 2018 and June 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 163 patients were included in the study, 81 patients in group 1 who received %0.25 bupivacaine, and 82 patients in group 2 who received %0.50 bupivacaine for femoral block. The highest visual analogue pain scale (VAS) scores in the postoperative 24 hours, the amount of tramadol requested and consumed with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) devices, and whether there was a significant difference in terms of side effects (nausea, vomiting, motor and sensory deficit) were analyzed. RESULTS: The highest VAS score in group 1 was 2.95 ± 1.31, in group 2 it was 2.84 ± 1.06, and there was no significant difference between them. The mean consumption of tramadol was 197.04 ± 92.03 mg in group 1 and 208.05 ± 85.06 mg in group 2. There was no difference between the demand and consumption of tramadol and side effects. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 20 mL %0.25 bupivacaine for the femoral block provided the equivalent analgesic efficacy to the same volume of %0.50 bupivacaine. We think that the use of % 0.25 bupivacaine is a more reliable option to reduce systemic side effects, motor block risk and complications.","PeriodicalId":36000,"journal":{"name":"Anestezi Dergisi","volume":"156 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anestezi Dergisi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5222/jarss.2021.68553","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In our study, we aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy, side effect profile and its effect on opioid consumption of the femoral nerve block applied with different concentrations of local anesthetic agents (%0.5 bupivacaine and %0.25 bupivacaine) in the same volume (20 mL) after total knee replacement (TKR) operation. METHODS: The files of patients who underwent unilateral TKR surgery under spinal anesthesia between August 2018 and June 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 163 patients were included in the study, 81 patients in group 1 who received %0.25 bupivacaine, and 82 patients in group 2 who received %0.50 bupivacaine for femoral block. The highest visual analogue pain scale (VAS) scores in the postoperative 24 hours, the amount of tramadol requested and consumed with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) devices, and whether there was a significant difference in terms of side effects (nausea, vomiting, motor and sensory deficit) were analyzed. RESULTS: The highest VAS score in group 1 was 2.95 ± 1.31, in group 2 it was 2.84 ± 1.06, and there was no significant difference between them. The mean consumption of tramadol was 197.04 ± 92.03 mg in group 1 and 208.05 ± 85.06 mg in group 2. There was no difference between the demand and consumption of tramadol and side effects. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 20 mL %0.25 bupivacaine for the femoral block provided the equivalent analgesic efficacy to the same volume of %0.50 bupivacaine. We think that the use of % 0.25 bupivacaine is a more reliable option to reduce systemic side effects, motor block risk and complications.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两种不同剂量布比卡因股动脉阻滞方案对术后镇痛的影响:单中心数据的回顾性分析
摘要:本研究旨在比较全膝关节置换术(TKR)术后不同剂量局麻药(%0.5布比卡因和%0.25布比卡因)在相同体积(20 mL)下应用于股神经阻滞的镇痛效果、副作用及其对阿片类药物消耗的影响。方法:回顾性分析2018年8月至2019年6月脊柱麻醉下单侧TKR手术患者的资料。163例患者纳入研究,1组81例患者接受%0.25布比卡因治疗,2组82例患者接受%0.50布比卡因治疗股动脉阻滞。分析术后24小时内视觉模拟疼痛评分(VAS)最高、静脉自控镇痛(PCA)装置要求和使用曲马多的量,以及在副作用(恶心、呕吐、运动和感觉缺陷)方面是否存在显著差异。结果:1组患者VAS评分最高(2.95±1.31),2组患者VAS评分最高(2.84±1.06),两组比较差异无统计学意义。曲马多的平均摄取量1组为197.04±92.03 mg, 2组为208.05±85.06 mg。曲马多的需求量和消费量以及副作用之间没有差异。讨论与结论:20 mL %0.25布比卡因用于股动脉阻滞与相同体积%0.50布比卡因具有相同的镇痛效果。我们认为使用% 0.25布比卡因是减少全身副作用、运动传导阻滞风险和并发症的更可靠的选择。
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
Anestezi Dergisi
Anestezi Dergisi Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
Perioperative Hypothermia and Associated Factors: A Prospective Cohort Study Evaluation of the Knowledge, Skills and Practices on Rapid Sequence Intubation of Physicians Working in Anesthesiology and Reanimation Clinics in Turkey: Survey Study Indispensable for Anesthesia and Intensive Care Units: End-Tidal Carbon Dioxide and Capnography: A Bibliometric Analysis during 1980-2022 Inadequancy and Differences about the Attitudes in Pain Control of Cancer Patients: Assessment of Algology Department Acute Hepatic Injury Following Cardiac Surgery: Retrospective Observational Study
×
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