在 BRAKA - I 小儿尿道下裂修补术中,超声引导的尾状神经阻滞与阴茎神经阻滞的镇痛效果比较

Q4 Health Professions Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal Pub Date : 2024-02-28 DOI:10.51253/pafmj.v74i1.9445
Abrar Ahmed, Syed Qasim Rizvi, Muhammad Saad Sikander, Khalid Buland, Muhammad Huzaifa Shareef, Muhammad Saad Farooq
{"title":"在 BRAKA - I 小儿尿道下裂修补术中,超声引导的尾状神经阻滞与阴茎神经阻滞的镇痛效果比较","authors":"Abrar Ahmed, Syed Qasim Rizvi, Muhammad Saad Sikander, Khalid Buland, Muhammad Huzaifa Shareef, Muhammad Saad Farooq","doi":"10.51253/pafmj.v74i1.9445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare the efficacy of ultrasound-guided caudal versus pudendal nerve block analgesia in paediatric patients undergoing hypospadias.\nStudy Design: Quasi-experimental study.\nPlace and Duration of Study: Combined Military Hospital Rawalpindi, Pakistan from Mar to Sep 2022.\nMethodology: Paediatric patients with ages ranging from 4-12 years with ASA Grade I/II planned for hypospadias repair were included. Sixty-eight patients were divided into Group-C (caudal block) and Group-P (pudendal nerve block), after randomization. Group-C patients received ultrasound-guided caudal block while pudendal nerve blockade was performed under ultrasound guidance in Group- P. Demographic variables, requirement of rescue analgesics, CHEOPS scoring at 0, 1, 2,6 and 12 hours, and complications in the intraoperative period were recorded.\nResults: Pain scores at the 6th and 12th hour were significantly reduced in Group-P compared to Group-C. Requirement of analgesia was lesser in Group P 01(2.9%) compared to 11(32.3%) in Group C with a p-value of 0.006. Out of 34 patients in Group-C 07(20.6%), patients encountered complications compared to Group-P, which had no complications.\nConclusion: Ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block is superior to caudal block in providing adequate perioperative analgesia with fewer complications and decreased requirement of additional analgesic supplements.","PeriodicalId":31059,"journal":{"name":"Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analgesic efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Caudal Block versus Pudendal Nerve Block in BRAKA - I Repair for Paediatric Hypospadias\",\"authors\":\"Abrar Ahmed, Syed Qasim Rizvi, Muhammad Saad Sikander, Khalid Buland, Muhammad Huzaifa Shareef, Muhammad Saad Farooq\",\"doi\":\"10.51253/pafmj.v74i1.9445\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To compare the efficacy of ultrasound-guided caudal versus pudendal nerve block analgesia in paediatric patients undergoing hypospadias.\\nStudy Design: Quasi-experimental study.\\nPlace and Duration of Study: Combined Military Hospital Rawalpindi, Pakistan from Mar to Sep 2022.\\nMethodology: Paediatric patients with ages ranging from 4-12 years with ASA Grade I/II planned for hypospadias repair were included. Sixty-eight patients were divided into Group-C (caudal block) and Group-P (pudendal nerve block), after randomization. Group-C patients received ultrasound-guided caudal block while pudendal nerve blockade was performed under ultrasound guidance in Group- P. Demographic variables, requirement of rescue analgesics, CHEOPS scoring at 0, 1, 2,6 and 12 hours, and complications in the intraoperative period were recorded.\\nResults: Pain scores at the 6th and 12th hour were significantly reduced in Group-P compared to Group-C. Requirement of analgesia was lesser in Group P 01(2.9%) compared to 11(32.3%) in Group C with a p-value of 0.006. Out of 34 patients in Group-C 07(20.6%), patients encountered complications compared to Group-P, which had no complications.\\nConclusion: Ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block is superior to caudal block in providing adequate perioperative analgesia with fewer complications and decreased requirement of additional analgesic supplements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":31059,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v74i1.9445\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v74i1.9445","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的比较在超声引导下对接受尿道下裂手术的儿科患者进行尾状神经与阴茎神经阻滞镇痛的疗效:准实验研究:研究地点和时间:巴基斯坦拉瓦尔品第联合军事医院,2022年3月至9月:纳入年龄在 4-12 岁之间、ASA I/II 级、计划进行尿道下裂修补术的儿科患者。经过随机分组,68 名患者被分为 C 组(尾状神经阻滞)和 P 组(臀状神经阻滞)。C组患者在超声引导下接受尾部阻滞,P组患者在超声引导下进行阴茎神经阻滞。记录了人口统计学变量、抢救镇痛药需求、0、1、2、6和12小时的CHEOPS评分以及术中并发症:结果:与 C 组相比,P 组在第 6 小时和第 12 小时的疼痛评分明显降低。P 组需要镇痛的人数为 01 人(2.9%),C 组为 11 人(32.3%),P 值为 0.006。在 34 例患者中,C 组有 07 例(20.6%)患者出现并发症,而 P 组没有并发症:结论:超声引导下的阴部神经阻滞术在提供充分的围术期镇痛方面优于尾状神经阻滞术,且并发症较少,减少了对额外镇痛补充剂的需求。
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
Analgesic efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Caudal Block versus Pudendal Nerve Block in BRAKA - I Repair for Paediatric Hypospadias
Objective: To compare the efficacy of ultrasound-guided caudal versus pudendal nerve block analgesia in paediatric patients undergoing hypospadias. Study Design: Quasi-experimental study. Place and Duration of Study: Combined Military Hospital Rawalpindi, Pakistan from Mar to Sep 2022. Methodology: Paediatric patients with ages ranging from 4-12 years with ASA Grade I/II planned for hypospadias repair were included. Sixty-eight patients were divided into Group-C (caudal block) and Group-P (pudendal nerve block), after randomization. Group-C patients received ultrasound-guided caudal block while pudendal nerve blockade was performed under ultrasound guidance in Group- P. Demographic variables, requirement of rescue analgesics, CHEOPS scoring at 0, 1, 2,6 and 12 hours, and complications in the intraoperative period were recorded. Results: Pain scores at the 6th and 12th hour were significantly reduced in Group-P compared to Group-C. Requirement of analgesia was lesser in Group P 01(2.9%) compared to 11(32.3%) in Group C with a p-value of 0.006. Out of 34 patients in Group-C 07(20.6%), patients encountered complications compared to Group-P, which had no complications. Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block is superior to caudal block in providing adequate perioperative analgesia with fewer complications and decreased requirement of additional analgesic supplements.
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
Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal
Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal Health Professions-Health Professions (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Clinical Audit on the Quality of Pre-Anaesthesia Assessment based on Predefined Pre-anaesthesia Assessment Form Dyslipidaemia In Acute Non-Cardioembolic Ischemic Stroke Patients At A Tertiary Care Center Differential Impact of Subcutaneous Neurokinin B Administration on Epididymal Proliferation in Adult New Zealand White Rabbits: A Dose-Dependent Study Association of Tumour Budding With Histological Type And Grade, Pathological Stage And Lymph Node Metastasis In Colorectal Carcinoma Pattern Of Maxillofacial Fractures In Combined Military Hospital, Peshawar
×
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