0.2%布比卡因与0.2%罗哌卡因股神经阻滞用于股骨骨折术前定位及术后镇痛的比较

P. Natarajan, S. Srinivasan, C. Dhanasekaran, N. K. Sekaran
{"title":"0.2%布比卡因与0.2%罗哌卡因股神经阻滞用于股骨骨折术前定位及术后镇痛的比较","authors":"P. Natarajan, S. Srinivasan, C. Dhanasekaran, N. K. Sekaran","doi":"10.7439/IJASR.V2I9.3638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Femur fractures are very painful. The peripheral nerve block provides good analgesia in these patients before performing regional anesthesia. This study aims to compare 2 local anesthestics in femoral nerve block for analgesia in preoperative positioning and postoperative analgesia of patientsMethods: Prospective, randomized study was conducted on 60 patients (18-60 years) of ASA I&II scheduled for femur surgery under combined spinal epidural. anaesthesia In group B (n=30), femoral nerve block(FNB) was performed with 0.2% bupivacaine (30ml) and in group R(n=30), 0.2% ropivacaine (30 ml) was used. Various parameters like numeric rating pain scale, time to spinal anaesthesia, sensory and motor block onset times and durations, time to first analgesic use, intraoperative & postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) data, post- operative epidural top ups, vitals and side effects were recorded for each patient.Results: Pain assessed on visual analogue scale (VAS) during positioning was significantly less in FNB group using 0.2%bupivacaine at 5 minutes. Time to perform spinal block was significantly shorter in FNB group using 0.2% bupivacaine (8.30 min) versus ropivacaine group (17.30 min). But postoperative analgesic requirements were more in ropivacaine group and duration of analgesia was prolonged in bupivacaine group.Conclusion: With bupivacaine time to perform spinal anesthesia was reduced and postoperative analgesia was better with bupivacaine group.","PeriodicalId":119953,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of 0.2% Bupivacaine with 0.2% Ropivacaine in Femoral Nerve Block for Preoperative Positioning and Postoperative Analgesia in Femur Fractures\",\"authors\":\"P. Natarajan, S. Srinivasan, C. Dhanasekaran, N. K. Sekaran\",\"doi\":\"10.7439/IJASR.V2I9.3638\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Femur fractures are very painful. The peripheral nerve block provides good analgesia in these patients before performing regional anesthesia. This study aims to compare 2 local anesthestics in femoral nerve block for analgesia in preoperative positioning and postoperative analgesia of patientsMethods: Prospective, randomized study was conducted on 60 patients (18-60 years) of ASA I&II scheduled for femur surgery under combined spinal epidural. anaesthesia In group B (n=30), femoral nerve block(FNB) was performed with 0.2% bupivacaine (30ml) and in group R(n=30), 0.2% ropivacaine (30 ml) was used. Various parameters like numeric rating pain scale, time to spinal anaesthesia, sensory and motor block onset times and durations, time to first analgesic use, intraoperative & postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) data, post- operative epidural top ups, vitals and side effects were recorded for each patient.Results: Pain assessed on visual analogue scale (VAS) during positioning was significantly less in FNB group using 0.2%bupivacaine at 5 minutes. Time to perform spinal block was significantly shorter in FNB group using 0.2% bupivacaine (8.30 min) versus ropivacaine group (17.30 min). But postoperative analgesic requirements were more in ropivacaine group and duration of analgesia was prolonged in bupivacaine group.Conclusion: With bupivacaine time to perform spinal anesthesia was reduced and postoperative analgesia was better with bupivacaine group.\",\"PeriodicalId\":119953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7439/IJASR.V2I9.3638\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7439/IJASR.V2I9.3638","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

股骨骨折是非常痛苦的。周围神经阻滞为这些患者在进行区域麻醉前提供了良好的镇痛效果。本研究旨在比较两种局麻在股神经阻滞中对患者术前定位和术后镇痛效果的影响。方法:前瞻性、随机研究60例(18-60岁)在联合脊髓硬膜外下行ASA i和ii级股骨手术的患者。麻醉B组(n=30)采用0.2%布比卡因(30ml)行股神经阻滞(FNB), R组(n=30)采用0.2%罗哌卡因(30ml)。记录每位患者的各种参数,如数值评定疼痛量表、脊髓麻醉时间、感觉和运动阻滞发作时间和持续时间、首次使用镇痛药时间、术中和术后视觉模拟评分(VAS)数据、术后硬膜外充值、生命体征和副作用。结果:使用0.2%布比卡因的FNB组体位5分钟时视觉模拟评分(VAS)疼痛明显减轻。0.2%布比卡因FNB组脊髓阻滞时间(8.30 min)明显短于罗哌卡因组(17.30 min)。但罗哌卡因组术后镇痛需求较多,布比卡因组术后镇痛时间延长。结论:布比卡因组腰麻时间缩短,术后镇痛效果较好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of 0.2% Bupivacaine with 0.2% Ropivacaine in Femoral Nerve Block for Preoperative Positioning and Postoperative Analgesia in Femur Fractures
Introduction: Femur fractures are very painful. The peripheral nerve block provides good analgesia in these patients before performing regional anesthesia. This study aims to compare 2 local anesthestics in femoral nerve block for analgesia in preoperative positioning and postoperative analgesia of patientsMethods: Prospective, randomized study was conducted on 60 patients (18-60 years) of ASA I&II scheduled for femur surgery under combined spinal epidural. anaesthesia In group B (n=30), femoral nerve block(FNB) was performed with 0.2% bupivacaine (30ml) and in group R(n=30), 0.2% ropivacaine (30 ml) was used. Various parameters like numeric rating pain scale, time to spinal anaesthesia, sensory and motor block onset times and durations, time to first analgesic use, intraoperative & postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) data, post- operative epidural top ups, vitals and side effects were recorded for each patient.Results: Pain assessed on visual analogue scale (VAS) during positioning was significantly less in FNB group using 0.2%bupivacaine at 5 minutes. Time to perform spinal block was significantly shorter in FNB group using 0.2% bupivacaine (8.30 min) versus ropivacaine group (17.30 min). But postoperative analgesic requirements were more in ropivacaine group and duration of analgesia was prolonged in bupivacaine group.Conclusion: With bupivacaine time to perform spinal anesthesia was reduced and postoperative analgesia was better with bupivacaine group.
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
EXTRACTION, ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION OF VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF CASSIA UNIFLORA AND IT’S IN VITRO STUDIES Mechanism underlying the inhibitory effect of Elaeagnus Conferta Roxb on TNF –α induced NF- kB nuclear translocation in non- small lung cancer A549 cell line using Flow cytometry In silico study: Assessment of the inhibition of cyclo-oxygenase 2 by ibuprofen by validating molecular docking and cardiovascular effects reported during the COVID 19 pandemic NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER (NSCLC) - A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW The assessment of pharmacists’ willingness to join a pharmaceutical care pilot project in Poland
×
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