蛛网膜下腔阻滞下,鞘内注射纳洛酮和右美托咪定作为布比卡因与普通布比卡因的佐剂用于骨科手术:一项比较研究。

Anesthesia, Essays and Researches Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-09 DOI:10.4103/aer.aer_127_22
Bindu Nagaraj, B R Vinay, N V Vani, V P Dayananda
{"title":"蛛网膜下腔阻滞下,鞘内注射纳洛酮和右美托咪定作为布比卡因与普通布比卡因的佐剂用于骨科手术:一项比较研究。","authors":"Bindu Nagaraj,&nbsp;B R Vinay,&nbsp;N V Vani,&nbsp;V P Dayananda","doi":"10.4103/aer.aer_127_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In long bone surgeries, the severity of pain is more, demanding good intraoperative anesthesia, and prolonged postoperative analgesia. This is achieved in spinal anesthesia with adjuvants to local anesthetics, which act synergistically.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of nalbuphine and dexmedetomidine as adjuvants to bupivacaine versus bupivacaine alone in lower limb orthopedic surgeries under the subarachnoid block (SAB).</p><p><strong>Settings and design: </strong>This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind control study conducted on 60 patients belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status Classes I and II, undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgeries under SAB.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Sixty patients were divided into three groups by computer-generated randomization. Group A received 2.7 mL of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 1.5 mg nalbuphine, Group B received 2.7 mL of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 10 μg dexmedetomidine, and Group C received 2.7 mL of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 0.5 mL of normal saline (total volume made to 3.2 mL in all groups with normal saline). Time of onset of block, duration of sensory, and motor blocks were noted. Changes in hemodynamic parameters, postoperative first rescue analgesia requirement, and side effects were recorded.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>Data were analyzed using SPSS 22 version software. <i>P</i> < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in the onset of sensory or motor blocks in the three groups. However, the time taken for regression of sensory block was longer in Group B that was statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intrathecal dexmedetomidine acts as a better adjuvant with bupivacaine in providing quality anesthesia, prolonged sensory and motor block, and good postoperative analgesia with less incidence of adverse effects compared to nalbuphine and bupivacaine alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":7798,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches","volume":"16 3","pages":"381-385"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9813996/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intrathecal Nalbuphine and Dexmedetomidine as Adjuvants to Bupivacaine versus Plain Bupivacaine for Orthopedic Surgeries under Subarachnoid Block: A Comparative Study.\",\"authors\":\"Bindu Nagaraj,&nbsp;B R Vinay,&nbsp;N V Vani,&nbsp;V P Dayananda\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/aer.aer_127_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In long bone surgeries, the severity of pain is more, demanding good intraoperative anesthesia, and prolonged postoperative analgesia. This is achieved in spinal anesthesia with adjuvants to local anesthetics, which act synergistically.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of nalbuphine and dexmedetomidine as adjuvants to bupivacaine versus bupivacaine alone in lower limb orthopedic surgeries under the subarachnoid block (SAB).</p><p><strong>Settings and design: </strong>This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind control study conducted on 60 patients belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status Classes I and II, undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgeries under SAB.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Sixty patients were divided into three groups by computer-generated randomization. Group A received 2.7 mL of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 1.5 mg nalbuphine, Group B received 2.7 mL of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 10 μg dexmedetomidine, and Group C received 2.7 mL of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 0.5 mL of normal saline (total volume made to 3.2 mL in all groups with normal saline). Time of onset of block, duration of sensory, and motor blocks were noted. Changes in hemodynamic parameters, postoperative first rescue analgesia requirement, and side effects were recorded.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>Data were analyzed using SPSS 22 version software. <i>P</i> < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in the onset of sensory or motor blocks in the three groups. However, the time taken for regression of sensory block was longer in Group B that was statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intrathecal dexmedetomidine acts as a better adjuvant with bupivacaine in providing quality anesthesia, prolonged sensory and motor block, and good postoperative analgesia with less incidence of adverse effects compared to nalbuphine and bupivacaine alone.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7798,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches\",\"volume\":\"16 3\",\"pages\":\"381-385\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9813996/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/aer.aer_127_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/12/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aer.aer_127_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:在长骨手术中,疼痛的严重程度更高,需要良好的术中麻醉和延长术后镇痛时间。这是在脊柱麻醉中通过局部麻醉剂的佐剂实现的,这些佐剂具有协同作用。目的:本研究的目的是比较纳尔布芬和右美托咪定作为布比卡因佐剂与单独布比卡因在蛛网膜下腔阻滞(SAB)下下肢骨科手术中的疗效,对60名属于美国麻醉师学会一级和二级身体状况的患者进行双盲对照研究,这些患者在SAB下接受下肢骨科手术。材料和方法:60名患者通过计算机生成的随机分组分为三组。A组接受2.7mL 0.5%高压布比卡因加1.5mg那布芬,B组接受2.7ml 0.5%高压布哌卡因加10μg右美托咪定,C组接受2.7mL0.5%高压布吡卡因加0.5mL生理盐水(所有生理盐水组的总体积均为3.2mL)。记录阻滞开始的时间、感觉阻滞的持续时间和运动阻滞。记录血液动力学参数的变化、术后急救镇痛要求和副作用。使用统计分析:数据使用SPSS 22版本软件进行分析。P<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。结果:三组患者感觉或运动障碍的发生率无显著差异。然而,B组感觉传导阻滞消退所需的时间更长,这具有统计学意义。结论:与单独使用那布芬和布比卡因相比,鞘内右美托咪定与布比卡因在提供高质量麻醉、延长感觉和运动阻滞以及良好的术后镇痛方面具有更好的辅助作用,不良反应发生率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Intrathecal Nalbuphine and Dexmedetomidine as Adjuvants to Bupivacaine versus Plain Bupivacaine for Orthopedic Surgeries under Subarachnoid Block: A Comparative Study.

Background: In long bone surgeries, the severity of pain is more, demanding good intraoperative anesthesia, and prolonged postoperative analgesia. This is achieved in spinal anesthesia with adjuvants to local anesthetics, which act synergistically.

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of nalbuphine and dexmedetomidine as adjuvants to bupivacaine versus bupivacaine alone in lower limb orthopedic surgeries under the subarachnoid block (SAB).

Settings and design: This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind control study conducted on 60 patients belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status Classes I and II, undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgeries under SAB.

Materials and methods: Sixty patients were divided into three groups by computer-generated randomization. Group A received 2.7 mL of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 1.5 mg nalbuphine, Group B received 2.7 mL of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 10 μg dexmedetomidine, and Group C received 2.7 mL of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 0.5 mL of normal saline (total volume made to 3.2 mL in all groups with normal saline). Time of onset of block, duration of sensory, and motor blocks were noted. Changes in hemodynamic parameters, postoperative first rescue analgesia requirement, and side effects were recorded.

Statistical analysis used: Data were analyzed using SPSS 22 version software. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: There was no significant difference in the onset of sensory or motor blocks in the three groups. However, the time taken for regression of sensory block was longer in Group B that was statistically significant.

Conclusion: Intrathecal dexmedetomidine acts as a better adjuvant with bupivacaine in providing quality anesthesia, prolonged sensory and motor block, and good postoperative analgesia with less incidence of adverse effects compared to nalbuphine and bupivacaine alone.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A comparison of two prophylactic doses of ephedrine to attenuate the hemodynamic responses in adults receiving propofol in general anesthesia; a South Indian perspective Comparison of hemodynamic stability with continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring and intermittent oscillometric blood pressure monitoring in hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis Thoracic epidural analgesia vs. intravenous analgesia in blunt thoracic trauma patients, managed conservatively with noninvasive ventilation (NIV): A prospective observational study Comparison of postoperative analgesic effects of gelfoam soaked with ropivacaine 0.5% and gelfoam soaked with dexamethasone 8 mg with placebo in single-level lumbar laminectomy A Randomised Control Study Comparing C-MAC D-Blade Video Laryngoscope (Hyper Angulated Blade) and Macintosh Laryngoscope for Insertion of a Double-Lumen Tube in Patients Undergoing Elective Thoracotomy.
×
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