纳布啡与芬太尼鞘内辅助布比卡因阻滞消退时间及不良反应的比较研究:前瞻性随机双盲研究

IF 0.5 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY Ain-Shams Journal of Anesthesiology Pub Date : 2023-10-26 DOI:10.1186/s42077-023-00382-y
Kamal Chandra Deori, Mrinal Kanti Taye, Babita Lahkar
{"title":"纳布啡与芬太尼鞘内辅助布比卡因阻滞消退时间及不良反应的比较研究:前瞻性随机双盲研究","authors":"Kamal Chandra Deori, Mrinal Kanti Taye, Babita Lahkar","doi":"10.1186/s42077-023-00382-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background The study was done to observe the effectiveness of nalbuphine as an adjuvant to intrathecal bupivacaine heavy, and hence, it was compared in terms of regression time of sensory and motor block and adverse effects with that of fentanyl as an adjuvant. The study design was a prospective randomized double-blind study. Total number of patients were 100. They were randomly allocated into two groups. Group N ( n = 50) received 3.2 ml of 0.5% heavy bupivacaine and 0.5 ml (0.8 mg) of nalbuphine, a total of 3.7 ml. Group F ( n = 50) received 3.2 ml of 0.5% heavy bupivacaine and 0.5 ml (25 µg) of fentanyl, a total of 3.7 ml. Assessment of sensory and motor blockade and analgesia was done by visual analogue scale and modified Bromage scale. Results On comparing the spinal block characteristics among two groups to reach, Bromage-3 motor block was found to be significantly shorter in group F ( p = 0.03777). The regression time of both sensory and motor block was significantly prolonged in group N ( P < 0.0001). No patients required additional analgesic intraoperatively, and intraoperative VAS scores and adverse effects were comparable in the two groups. Conclusions On comparing nalbuphine 0.8 mg and fentanyl 25 µg as an adjuvant to intrathecal bupivacaine, it has been observed that nalbuphine significantly prolongs regression time of sensory and motor block indicating the effectiveness of nalbuphine as an alternative to fentanyl and for prolong surgeries. The incidence of adverse effects was similar in both groups.","PeriodicalId":7686,"journal":{"name":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":"194 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study on regression time of block and adverse effects of nalbuphine and fentanyl as an adjuvant to intrathecal bupivacaine: a prospective randomized double-blind study\",\"authors\":\"Kamal Chandra Deori, Mrinal Kanti Taye, Babita Lahkar\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s42077-023-00382-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Background The study was done to observe the effectiveness of nalbuphine as an adjuvant to intrathecal bupivacaine heavy, and hence, it was compared in terms of regression time of sensory and motor block and adverse effects with that of fentanyl as an adjuvant. The study design was a prospective randomized double-blind study. Total number of patients were 100. They were randomly allocated into two groups. Group N ( n = 50) received 3.2 ml of 0.5% heavy bupivacaine and 0.5 ml (0.8 mg) of nalbuphine, a total of 3.7 ml. Group F ( n = 50) received 3.2 ml of 0.5% heavy bupivacaine and 0.5 ml (25 µg) of fentanyl, a total of 3.7 ml. Assessment of sensory and motor blockade and analgesia was done by visual analogue scale and modified Bromage scale. Results On comparing the spinal block characteristics among two groups to reach, Bromage-3 motor block was found to be significantly shorter in group F ( p = 0.03777). The regression time of both sensory and motor block was significantly prolonged in group N ( P < 0.0001). No patients required additional analgesic intraoperatively, and intraoperative VAS scores and adverse effects were comparable in the two groups. Conclusions On comparing nalbuphine 0.8 mg and fentanyl 25 µg as an adjuvant to intrathecal bupivacaine, it has been observed that nalbuphine significantly prolongs regression time of sensory and motor block indicating the effectiveness of nalbuphine as an alternative to fentanyl and for prolong surgeries. The incidence of adverse effects was similar in both groups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7686,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ain-Shams Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"194 6\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ain-Shams Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42077-023-00382-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42077-023-00382-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要背景本研究旨在观察纳布啡辅助治疗鞘内布比卡因的有效性,并与芬太尼辅助治疗在感觉和运动阻滞的消退时间及不良反应方面进行比较。研究设计为前瞻性随机双盲研究。患者总数100例。他们被随机分为两组。N组(N = 50)给予0.5%重布比卡因3.2 ml和纳布啡0.5 ml (0.8 mg),共3.7 ml; F组(N = 50)给予0.5%重布比卡因3.2 ml和芬太尼0.5 ml(25µg),共3.7 ml。采用视觉模拟量表和改良Bromage量表评估感觉和运动阻断及镇痛效果。结果比较两组脊髓阻滞特征,F组Bromage-3运动阻滞明显短于F组(p = 0.03777)。N组感觉阻滞和运动阻滞的消退时间均显著延长(P <0.0001)。术中无患者需要额外镇痛,两组术中VAS评分和不良反应具有可比性。结论对比纳布啡0.8 mg和芬太尼25µg作为鞘内布比卡因的辅助剂,发现纳布啡显著延长了感觉和运动阻滞的消退时间,提示纳布啡可替代芬太尼,延长手术时间。两组不良反应发生率相似。
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 on regression time of block and adverse effects of nalbuphine and fentanyl as an adjuvant to intrathecal bupivacaine: a prospective randomized double-blind study
Abstract Background The study was done to observe the effectiveness of nalbuphine as an adjuvant to intrathecal bupivacaine heavy, and hence, it was compared in terms of regression time of sensory and motor block and adverse effects with that of fentanyl as an adjuvant. The study design was a prospective randomized double-blind study. Total number of patients were 100. They were randomly allocated into two groups. Group N ( n = 50) received 3.2 ml of 0.5% heavy bupivacaine and 0.5 ml (0.8 mg) of nalbuphine, a total of 3.7 ml. Group F ( n = 50) received 3.2 ml of 0.5% heavy bupivacaine and 0.5 ml (25 µg) of fentanyl, a total of 3.7 ml. Assessment of sensory and motor blockade and analgesia was done by visual analogue scale and modified Bromage scale. Results On comparing the spinal block characteristics among two groups to reach, Bromage-3 motor block was found to be significantly shorter in group F ( p = 0.03777). The regression time of both sensory and motor block was significantly prolonged in group N ( P < 0.0001). No patients required additional analgesic intraoperatively, and intraoperative VAS scores and adverse effects were comparable in the two groups. Conclusions On comparing nalbuphine 0.8 mg and fentanyl 25 µg as an adjuvant to intrathecal bupivacaine, it has been observed that nalbuphine significantly prolongs regression time of sensory and motor block indicating the effectiveness of nalbuphine as an alternative to fentanyl and for prolong surgeries. The incidence of adverse effects was similar in both groups.
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
80
期刊最新文献
Anesthetic management of diphallia with anorectal malformation posted for colostomy: a rare association APACHE IV, SAPS III, and SOFA scores for outcome prediction in a surgical/trauma critical care unit: an analytical cross-sectional study Broken epidural catheter: individualize your management Abiraterone, a rare cause of severe perioperative hypokalemia with unusual presentation as aphonia and quadriparesis: a case report An incidental finding of xanthochromia during spinal anaesthesia in a patient posted for lower limb surgery
×
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