Amin M Alansary, Mohamed M Aziz, Marwa A K Elbeialy
{"title":"地塞米松加布比卡因与布比卡因在腰椎手术双侧经切椎旁阻滞中的对比:一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Amin M Alansary, Mohamed M Aziz, Marwa A K Elbeialy","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Few studies examined the analgesic effects of dexamethasone in lumbar paravertebral block, specifically the transincisional approach. This study aimed to compare dexamethasone with bupivacaine versus bupivacaine alone for bilateral transincisional paravertebral block (TiPVB) for postoperative analgesia in lumbar spine surgeries.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Fifty patients who were aged 20 to 60 years and had American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) I or II of either sex were randomly allocated into 2 equal groups. Both groups received combined general anesthesia and bilateral lumbar TiPVB. However, in group 1 (dexamethasone group) (n=25), patients received 14 mL of bupivacaine 0.20% plus 1 mL containing 4 mg of dexamethasone on each side, while, in group 2 (control group) (n=25), patients received 14 mL of bupivacaine 0.20% plus 1 mL of saline on each side. Time to first analgesic need was the primary outcome, while total opioid consumption during the first 24 hours after surgery, the Visual Analog Scale for pain perception (0-10), and the incidence of side effects were secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean time to the first analgesic requirement was significantly prolonged among patients in the dexamethasone group than the control group (mean±SD: 18.4±0.8 vs. 8.7±1.2 h, respectively) ( P <0.001). Patients in the dexamethasone group had lower total opiates consumption than the control) P <0.001). Although nonsignificant, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was more frequent among the control group ( P =0.145).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Adding dexamethasone to bupivacaine in TiPVB resulted in a prolonged analgesia-free period and lower opioid consumption in lumbar spine surgeries with comparable incidence of adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":"39 9","pages":"458-466"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dexamethasone Plus Bupivacaine Versus Bupivacaine in Bilateral Transincisional Paravertebral Block in Lumbar Spine Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Amin M Alansary, Mohamed M Aziz, Marwa A K Elbeialy\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Few studies examined the analgesic effects of dexamethasone in lumbar paravertebral block, specifically the transincisional approach. This study aimed to compare dexamethasone with bupivacaine versus bupivacaine alone for bilateral transincisional paravertebral block (TiPVB) for postoperative analgesia in lumbar spine surgeries.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Fifty patients who were aged 20 to 60 years and had American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) I or II of either sex were randomly allocated into 2 equal groups. Both groups received combined general anesthesia and bilateral lumbar TiPVB. However, in group 1 (dexamethasone group) (n=25), patients received 14 mL of bupivacaine 0.20% plus 1 mL containing 4 mg of dexamethasone on each side, while, in group 2 (control group) (n=25), patients received 14 mL of bupivacaine 0.20% plus 1 mL of saline on each side. Time to first analgesic need was the primary outcome, while total opioid consumption during the first 24 hours after surgery, the Visual Analog Scale for pain perception (0-10), and the incidence of side effects were secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean time to the first analgesic requirement was significantly prolonged among patients in the dexamethasone group than the control group (mean±SD: 18.4±0.8 vs. 8.7±1.2 h, respectively) ( P <0.001). Patients in the dexamethasone group had lower total opiates consumption than the control) P <0.001). Although nonsignificant, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was more frequent among the control group ( P =0.145).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Adding dexamethasone to bupivacaine in TiPVB resulted in a prolonged analgesia-free period and lower opioid consumption in lumbar spine surgeries with comparable incidence of adverse events.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\"39 9\",\"pages\":\"458-466\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001141\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001141","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:很少有研究考察地塞米松在腰椎旁阻滞中的镇痛作用,特别是经断入路。本研究旨在比较地塞米松联合布比卡因与单独布比卡因用于双侧经切椎旁阻滞(TiPVB)在腰椎手术术后镇痛中的作用。材料与方法:年龄在20 ~ 60岁之间,具有美国麻醉医师协会生理状态(ASA-PS) I级或II级资质的男女患者50例,随机分为2组。两组均采用全麻联合双侧腰椎TiPVB。而第1组(地塞米松组)(n=25)患者每侧给予0.20%布比卡因14 mL加含4 mg地塞米松的1 mL,而第2组(n=25)患者每侧给予0.20%布比卡因14 mL加生理盐水1 mL。第一次需要镇痛药的时间是主要结果,而术后24小时内阿片类药物的总消耗量、疼痛感觉的视觉模拟量表(0-10)和副作用的发生率是次要结果。结果:与对照组相比,地塞米松组患者达到第一次镇痛需求的平均时间明显延长(平均±SD: 18.4±0.8 h vs 8.7±1.2 h) (P讨论:在TiPVB中,在布比卡因中加入地塞米松可延长腰椎手术的无镇痛期,降低阿片类药物的消耗,且不良事件发生率相当。
Dexamethasone Plus Bupivacaine Versus Bupivacaine in Bilateral Transincisional Paravertebral Block in Lumbar Spine Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Objectives: Few studies examined the analgesic effects of dexamethasone in lumbar paravertebral block, specifically the transincisional approach. This study aimed to compare dexamethasone with bupivacaine versus bupivacaine alone for bilateral transincisional paravertebral block (TiPVB) for postoperative analgesia in lumbar spine surgeries.
Materials and methods: Fifty patients who were aged 20 to 60 years and had American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) I or II of either sex were randomly allocated into 2 equal groups. Both groups received combined general anesthesia and bilateral lumbar TiPVB. However, in group 1 (dexamethasone group) (n=25), patients received 14 mL of bupivacaine 0.20% plus 1 mL containing 4 mg of dexamethasone on each side, while, in group 2 (control group) (n=25), patients received 14 mL of bupivacaine 0.20% plus 1 mL of saline on each side. Time to first analgesic need was the primary outcome, while total opioid consumption during the first 24 hours after surgery, the Visual Analog Scale for pain perception (0-10), and the incidence of side effects were secondary outcomes.
Results: The mean time to the first analgesic requirement was significantly prolonged among patients in the dexamethasone group than the control group (mean±SD: 18.4±0.8 vs. 8.7±1.2 h, respectively) ( P <0.001). Patients in the dexamethasone group had lower total opiates consumption than the control) P <0.001). Although nonsignificant, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was more frequent among the control group ( P =0.145).
Discussion: Adding dexamethasone to bupivacaine in TiPVB resulted in a prolonged analgesia-free period and lower opioid consumption in lumbar spine surgeries with comparable incidence of adverse events.
期刊介绍:
The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.