大剂量丙罗卡因硬膜外麻醉——成功率和患者接受度。630例麻醉患者的前瞻性研究[j]。

IF 1.9 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Regional-Anaesthesie Pub Date : 1991-07-01
W Gauch, G Weidringer, R Hässler
{"title":"大剂量丙罗卡因硬膜外麻醉——成功率和患者接受度。630例麻醉患者的前瞻性研究[j]。","authors":"W Gauch,&nbsp;G Weidringer,&nbsp;R Hässler","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In a prospective clinical study the follow-up course of 630 lumbar single-shot and continuous epidural anesthetics in young patients (average age 24.5 years) with 20-25 ml prilocaine 2% (epinephrine concentration 1:200,000) and 0.1 mg fentanyl was examined critically. The patients were interviewed postoperatively about this method of anesthesia. In 89% of cases the patients had been found suitable for surgery without any additional medication; 9% of the patients needed 0.1-0.15 mg fentanyl and 2.5-5 mg midazolam i.v. Only in 10/630 cases was supplementary anesthesia needed. During anesthesia a drop in blood pressure by 30% or more of the original value was recorded in 1.4% of patients; 5 patients had obvious simultaneous bradycardia. Nausea and vomiting were observed in 2.5% of cases; in 6 patients the level of peridural anesthesia was as high as T4-5. Postoperatively, 19% of the patients complained of discomfort in the area of the lumbar vertebral column. It subsided significantly 2 days after surgery; in 5.6% of cases patients had micturition disorder needing treatment. In 93% of cases the patients considered the method of anesthesia quite acceptable; in the same circumstances 96.5% said they would prefer epidural block to general anesthesia. The main reasons for this were the possibility of observing the surgical operation (26.8%) and the likelihood of speedy recovery on the same day (24.3%). Epidural block is preferred to any form of general anesthesia according to the experience we have gained in these young patients without essential concomitant diseases and with exact consideration to the contraindications for all operations distal of segments T9 and T10.</p>","PeriodicalId":77604,"journal":{"name":"Regional-Anaesthesie","volume":"14 4","pages":"70-3"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"1991-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Peridural anesthesia using high volume prilocaine--success rate and patient acceptance. A prospective study of 630 anesthetized patients].\",\"authors\":\"W Gauch,&nbsp;G Weidringer,&nbsp;R Hässler\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In a prospective clinical study the follow-up course of 630 lumbar single-shot and continuous epidural anesthetics in young patients (average age 24.5 years) with 20-25 ml prilocaine 2% (epinephrine concentration 1:200,000) and 0.1 mg fentanyl was examined critically. The patients were interviewed postoperatively about this method of anesthesia. In 89% of cases the patients had been found suitable for surgery without any additional medication; 9% of the patients needed 0.1-0.15 mg fentanyl and 2.5-5 mg midazolam i.v. Only in 10/630 cases was supplementary anesthesia needed. During anesthesia a drop in blood pressure by 30% or more of the original value was recorded in 1.4% of patients; 5 patients had obvious simultaneous bradycardia. Nausea and vomiting were observed in 2.5% of cases; in 6 patients the level of peridural anesthesia was as high as T4-5. Postoperatively, 19% of the patients complained of discomfort in the area of the lumbar vertebral column. It subsided significantly 2 days after surgery; in 5.6% of cases patients had micturition disorder needing treatment. In 93% of cases the patients considered the method of anesthesia quite acceptable; in the same circumstances 96.5% said they would prefer epidural block to general anesthesia. The main reasons for this were the possibility of observing the surgical operation (26.8%) and the likelihood of speedy recovery on the same day (24.3%). Epidural block is preferred to any form of general anesthesia according to the experience we have gained in these young patients without essential concomitant diseases and with exact consideration to the contraindications for all operations distal of segments T9 and T10.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regional-Anaesthesie\",\"volume\":\"14 4\",\"pages\":\"70-3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"1991-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Regional-Anaesthesie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional-Anaesthesie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一项前瞻性临床研究中,观察了630例年轻患者(平均24.5岁)在20-25 ml丙罗卡因2%(肾上腺素浓度1:20万)和0.1 mg芬太尼的情况下腰段单次和连续硬膜外麻醉的随访过程。术后对患者进行了关于这种麻醉方法的访谈。在89%的病例中,患者在没有任何额外药物的情况下适合手术;9%的患者需要0.1 ~ 0.15 mg芬太尼和2.5 ~ 5 mg咪达唑仑静脉注射,只有10/630例患者需要补充麻醉。在麻醉期间,有1.4%的患者血压比原始值下降30%或更多;5例患者同时出现明显的心动过缓。2.5%的病例出现恶心和呕吐;6例患者硬膜外麻醉水平高达T4-5。术后,19%的患者抱怨腰椎区域不适。术后2 d明显消退;5.6%的患者有排尿障碍需要治疗。93%的患者认为麻醉方法是可以接受的;在相同的情况下,96.5%的人表示他们更愿意硬膜外阻滞而不是全身麻醉。其主要原因是能够观察到手术过程(26.8%)和当天快速恢复(24.3%)。根据我们在这些年轻患者中获得的经验,硬膜外阻滞优于任何形式的全身麻醉,这些患者没有必要的伴随疾病,并准确考虑了T9和T10节段远端所有手术的禁忌症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[Peridural anesthesia using high volume prilocaine--success rate and patient acceptance. A prospective study of 630 anesthetized patients].

In a prospective clinical study the follow-up course of 630 lumbar single-shot and continuous epidural anesthetics in young patients (average age 24.5 years) with 20-25 ml prilocaine 2% (epinephrine concentration 1:200,000) and 0.1 mg fentanyl was examined critically. The patients were interviewed postoperatively about this method of anesthesia. In 89% of cases the patients had been found suitable for surgery without any additional medication; 9% of the patients needed 0.1-0.15 mg fentanyl and 2.5-5 mg midazolam i.v. Only in 10/630 cases was supplementary anesthesia needed. During anesthesia a drop in blood pressure by 30% or more of the original value was recorded in 1.4% of patients; 5 patients had obvious simultaneous bradycardia. Nausea and vomiting were observed in 2.5% of cases; in 6 patients the level of peridural anesthesia was as high as T4-5. Postoperatively, 19% of the patients complained of discomfort in the area of the lumbar vertebral column. It subsided significantly 2 days after surgery; in 5.6% of cases patients had micturition disorder needing treatment. In 93% of cases the patients considered the method of anesthesia quite acceptable; in the same circumstances 96.5% said they would prefer epidural block to general anesthesia. The main reasons for this were the possibility of observing the surgical operation (26.8%) and the likelihood of speedy recovery on the same day (24.3%). Epidural block is preferred to any form of general anesthesia according to the experience we have gained in these young patients without essential concomitant diseases and with exact consideration to the contraindications for all operations distal of segments T9 and T10.

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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
[An epidural spinal abscess as a lethal complication of peridural anesthesia]. [Knotting of a peridural catheter]. [A simple technique for estimating the level of analgesia in regional anesthesia]. [CSE--the combination of spinal and epidural anesthesia]. [Comments on the paper by R. Schürg et al. Maternal and neonatal plasma concentrations of bupivacaine during peridural anesthesia for cesarean section].
×
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