Intrapleural anaesthesia for medical thoracoscopy - a pilot study

M. Reda, A. Gomaa, Maged Hassan, M. Shaheen, Salah Sorour
{"title":"Intrapleural anaesthesia for medical thoracoscopy - a pilot study","authors":"M. Reda, A. Gomaa, Maged Hassan, M. Shaheen, Salah Sorour","doi":"10.1183/13993003.congress-2018.OA497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Medical thoracoscopy (MT) has major role in diagnossis of exudative pleural effusion. MT is usually performed under conscious sedation (CS). Some patients suffer considerable pain during pleura biopsy or pleurodesis. The use of CS is occasionally complicated by respiratory failure. This study aimed to evaluate if intrapleural anaesthesia (IPA) using lidocaine via chest drain improves patient9s tolerability of MT. Mehtods: Patients were divided to 2 groups. In group 1: CS using IV midazolam with standard doses was done. In group 2: a chest drain was inserted to dry the affected side overnight. 20 min before procedure, 1 mg/kg of 1% lidocaine in 20 ml saline were instilled via drain and then clamped. Rigid scope was used. At the start of the MT, drain was removed, and pneumothorax was allowed to develop. The remainder of the MT procedure was carried out in the same manner in both groups. 10-cm Visual analogue score (VAS) for pain was recorded after the procedure. Results: Mean age in group 1 was 56+10 yrs while in group 2 it was 58+12 yrs. 2/10 patients were females in CS group, while in IPA group 7/10 were females. 50% of CS patients had CV comorbidities, which affected 60% of group 2 patients. Diagnosis was successfully made in all patients. 90% of patients in both groups had malignant pleural disease. The median VAS for pain during MT in CS was 8 (6.75-9), while with IPA it was 1 (0-3.75) (p 0.001). One major complication occurred in a case in CS group who had acute hypoventilation. 8/10 patients in CS and 1/10 patient in IPA group required IV analgesia after procedure. Conclusion: IPA appears to be associated with less pain during MT without decreasing yield. It might be a safer choice than CS.","PeriodicalId":20113,"journal":{"name":"Pleural and Mediastinal Malignancies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pleural and Mediastinal Malignancies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2018.OA497","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Medical thoracoscopy (MT) has major role in diagnossis of exudative pleural effusion. MT is usually performed under conscious sedation (CS). Some patients suffer considerable pain during pleura biopsy or pleurodesis. The use of CS is occasionally complicated by respiratory failure. This study aimed to evaluate if intrapleural anaesthesia (IPA) using lidocaine via chest drain improves patient9s tolerability of MT. Mehtods: Patients were divided to 2 groups. In group 1: CS using IV midazolam with standard doses was done. In group 2: a chest drain was inserted to dry the affected side overnight. 20 min before procedure, 1 mg/kg of 1% lidocaine in 20 ml saline were instilled via drain and then clamped. Rigid scope was used. At the start of the MT, drain was removed, and pneumothorax was allowed to develop. The remainder of the MT procedure was carried out in the same manner in both groups. 10-cm Visual analogue score (VAS) for pain was recorded after the procedure. Results: Mean age in group 1 was 56+10 yrs while in group 2 it was 58+12 yrs. 2/10 patients were females in CS group, while in IPA group 7/10 were females. 50% of CS patients had CV comorbidities, which affected 60% of group 2 patients. Diagnosis was successfully made in all patients. 90% of patients in both groups had malignant pleural disease. The median VAS for pain during MT in CS was 8 (6.75-9), while with IPA it was 1 (0-3.75) (p 0.001). One major complication occurred in a case in CS group who had acute hypoventilation. 8/10 patients in CS and 1/10 patient in IPA group required IV analgesia after procedure. Conclusion: IPA appears to be associated with less pain during MT without decreasing yield. It might be a safer choice than CS.
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
医学胸腔镜胸膜内麻醉的初步研究
背景:医学胸腔镜在胸腔渗出性积液的诊断中具有重要作用。MT通常在清醒镇静(CS)下进行。有些患者在胸膜活检或胸膜切除术时感到相当疼痛。CS的使用有时会因呼吸衰竭而复杂化。本研究旨在评价胸腔引流利多卡因胸膜内麻醉(IPA)是否能提高患者对MT的耐受性。方法:将患者分为两组。第一组:采用标准剂量咪达唑仑静脉注射。组2:插入胸腔引流管使患侧干燥过夜。术前20分钟,将1%利多卡因1 mg/kg滴入20 ml生理盐水中,经引流管滴入,然后夹紧。使用刚性范围。在MT开始时,引流管被移除,气胸被允许发展。两组以相同的方式进行MT手术的其余部分。术后记录疼痛10 cm视觉模拟评分(VAS)。结果:1组患者平均年龄56+10岁,2组患者平均年龄58+12岁。CS组2/10为女性,IPA组7/10为女性。50%的CS患者有CV合并症,其中60%的组2患者有CV合并症。所有患者均成功诊断。两组患者均有90%的恶性胸膜疾病。CS患者MT期间疼痛的VAS中值为8(6.75-9),而IPA患者的VAS中值为1 (0-3.75)(p 0.001)。CS组急性低通气1例发生主要并发症。8/10 CS组和1/10 IPA组术后需静脉镇痛。结论:IPA似乎与MT过程中疼痛的减轻有关,而不降低产量。这可能是一个比CS更安全的选择。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparing the Success Rate of Pleurodesis with Thoracoscopic Talc Poudrage Combined with Indwelling Pleural Catheter versus Thoracoscopic Talc Poudrage in Patient with Malignant Pleural Effusion, A Randomized, Non-inferiority Clinical Trial Patient derived malignant pleural effusion cell cultures as a platform to understand pleural malignancies and advance personalised treatment Variation in outcomes for M1a Stage Lung cacers- Outcome in Malingnat Pleural Effusion significantly worse than patients with Contralateral Lung Nodules Primary cilium modulates mesothelioma cell viability and 3D sphere formation Intracavitary anaesthesia for medical thoracoscopy: a randomised trial
×
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