不同入路治疗硬脊膜穿刺后头痛的比较研究

A. Hassan, B. Refaie, Islam Ahmed, A. Abdelkareem
{"title":"不同入路治疗硬脊膜穿刺后头痛的比较研究","authors":"A. Hassan, B. Refaie, Islam Ahmed, A. Abdelkareem","doi":"10.4103/roaic.roaic_12_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The postdural puncture headache (PDPH) is one of the spinal and epidural anesthesia complications. It can be induced by using large gauge-cutting needles or performing numerous trials. Conservative treatment was the primary option for the management of PDPH, sphenopalatine ganglion block (SPGB) can be a suitable and safe option for the treatment of PDPH. Aim The aim was to verify the efficacy and safety of transnasal SPGB using either lidocaine 2% or bupivacaine 0.5% as a treatment line for PDPH versus the conventional conservative treatment. Patients and methods In total, 120 patients with PDPH following cesarean section under spinal anesthesia were assigned and divided into three groups. Group L (n=40) received transnasal SPGB (lidocaine 2%), group B (n=40) received transnasal SPGB (bupivacaine 0.5%), and group C (n=40) received conservative treatment for 24 h [intravenous (IV) paracetamol 1 g/8 h]. The headache severity was measured by the visual analog scale (VAS) at 0 min, 30 min, 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h post treatment. Results No significant difference in the VAS from the baseline between the groups L and B was observed. VAS values were significantly lower in both groups when compared with patients in group C (P<0.05). No significant differences from baseline mean blood pressure, heart rate, or other complications (such as bleeding), were observed between the three groups at any timepoint. Conclusion The headache severity in PDPH cases might be reduced more efficiently through SPGB using either lidocaine or bupivacaine, unlike other conservative treatments such as paracetamol.","PeriodicalId":151256,"journal":{"name":"Research and Opinion in Anesthesia and Intensive Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study between different approaches for the management of postdural puncture headache\",\"authors\":\"A. Hassan, B. Refaie, Islam Ahmed, A. Abdelkareem\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/roaic.roaic_12_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction The postdural puncture headache (PDPH) is one of the spinal and epidural anesthesia complications. It can be induced by using large gauge-cutting needles or performing numerous trials. Conservative treatment was the primary option for the management of PDPH, sphenopalatine ganglion block (SPGB) can be a suitable and safe option for the treatment of PDPH. Aim The aim was to verify the efficacy and safety of transnasal SPGB using either lidocaine 2% or bupivacaine 0.5% as a treatment line for PDPH versus the conventional conservative treatment. Patients and methods In total, 120 patients with PDPH following cesarean section under spinal anesthesia were assigned and divided into three groups. Group L (n=40) received transnasal SPGB (lidocaine 2%), group B (n=40) received transnasal SPGB (bupivacaine 0.5%), and group C (n=40) received conservative treatment for 24 h [intravenous (IV) paracetamol 1 g/8 h]. The headache severity was measured by the visual analog scale (VAS) at 0 min, 30 min, 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h post treatment. Results No significant difference in the VAS from the baseline between the groups L and B was observed. VAS values were significantly lower in both groups when compared with patients in group C (P<0.05). No significant differences from baseline mean blood pressure, heart rate, or other complications (such as bleeding), were observed between the three groups at any timepoint. Conclusion The headache severity in PDPH cases might be reduced more efficiently through SPGB using either lidocaine or bupivacaine, unlike other conservative treatments such as paracetamol.\",\"PeriodicalId\":151256,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research and Opinion in Anesthesia and Intensive Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research and Opinion in Anesthesia and Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/roaic.roaic_12_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research and Opinion in Anesthesia and Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/roaic.roaic_12_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

硬脊膜后穿刺头痛(PDPH)是脊髓及硬膜外麻醉并发症之一。它可以通过使用大尺度切割针或进行多次试验来诱导。保守治疗是治疗PDPH的主要选择,蝶腭神经节阻滞(SPGB)是治疗PDPH的一种合适且安全的选择。目的验证2%利多卡因或0.5%布比卡因作为经鼻SPGB治疗PDPH的疗效和安全性,与传统保守治疗相比。选取120例腰麻剖宫产术后PDPH患者分为3组。L组(n=40)经鼻SPGB(利多卡因2%),B组(n=40)经鼻SPGB(布比卡因0.5%),C组(n=40)保守治疗24 h[静脉(IV)扑热息痛1 g/8 h]。在治疗后0 min、30 min、6 h、12 h和24 h采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)测量头痛严重程度。结果L组和B组的VAS评分与基线比较无显著差异。两组患者的VAS评分均显著低于C组(P<0.05)。在任何时间点,三组之间的平均血压、心率或其他并发症(如出血)与基线没有显著差异。结论与扑热息痛等保守治疗相比,使用利多卡因或布比卡因可更有效地减轻PDPH患者的头痛严重程度。
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
Comparative study between different approaches for the management of postdural puncture headache
Introduction The postdural puncture headache (PDPH) is one of the spinal and epidural anesthesia complications. It can be induced by using large gauge-cutting needles or performing numerous trials. Conservative treatment was the primary option for the management of PDPH, sphenopalatine ganglion block (SPGB) can be a suitable and safe option for the treatment of PDPH. Aim The aim was to verify the efficacy and safety of transnasal SPGB using either lidocaine 2% or bupivacaine 0.5% as a treatment line for PDPH versus the conventional conservative treatment. Patients and methods In total, 120 patients with PDPH following cesarean section under spinal anesthesia were assigned and divided into three groups. Group L (n=40) received transnasal SPGB (lidocaine 2%), group B (n=40) received transnasal SPGB (bupivacaine 0.5%), and group C (n=40) received conservative treatment for 24 h [intravenous (IV) paracetamol 1 g/8 h]. The headache severity was measured by the visual analog scale (VAS) at 0 min, 30 min, 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h post treatment. Results No significant difference in the VAS from the baseline between the groups L and B was observed. VAS values were significantly lower in both groups when compared with patients in group C (P<0.05). No significant differences from baseline mean blood pressure, heart rate, or other complications (such as bleeding), were observed between the three groups at any timepoint. Conclusion The headache severity in PDPH cases might be reduced more efficiently through SPGB using either lidocaine or bupivacaine, unlike other conservative treatments such as paracetamol.
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
Effectiveness of combined pulsed radiofrequency and steroid injection to the dorsal root ganglion in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia: a prospective randomized clinical trial Sacrococcygeal local anesthesia versus spinal anesthesia for pilonidal sinus surgery: a prospective randomized controlled study Role of enteral metoprolol tartrate on hemodynamics and clinical outcomes of septic shock patients of various pretargeted heart rate groups Prediction of protective lung tidal volume using the ulna length in Egyptian adults Characteristics and clinical outcomes of critically ill pregnant patients with COVID-19 disease
×
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