胸廓切开术患者的术后镇痛:全静脉麻醉与吸入麻醉的比较。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.12669/pjms.40.10.9907
Joo-Yong Lee, Soon-Taek Jeong, Ji-Hye Hwang, Sang Hi Park
{"title":"胸廓切开术患者的术后镇痛:全静脉麻醉与吸入麻醉的比较。","authors":"Joo-Yong Lee, Soon-Taek Jeong, Ji-Hye Hwang, Sang Hi Park","doi":"10.12669/pjms.40.10.9907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Propofol is more effective than inhalational anesthesia; however, the results for the management of acute pain remain controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the incidence of acute pain after inhalation anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia among patients who underwent thoracotomy at our hospital.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a single center retrospective observational study using data from electronic medical records. Sixty patients aged ≥20 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I or II who underwent regular and emergency thoracotomy between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2020, at Chungbuk National University Hospital were included in this study. The anesthesia and postoperative pain records of those who received total intravenous anesthesia (n=30) and inhalation anesthesia (n=30) were retrospectively reviewed. The pain score on the numeric rating scale (NRS) was evaluated at 2, 8, 24, and 30 hours postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average NRS score of patients who received total intravenous anesthesia was lesser than that of those who received inhalational anesthesia. Moreover, the difference in the NRS scores at eight hours postoperatively was statistically significant (P <0.05). Patients who received inhalational anesthesia had a higher pain score and experienced more severe pain than those who received intravenous anesthesia.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol-remifentanil provided better analgesia for acute postoperative pain in patients who underwent thoracotomy than inhalational anesthesia, suggesting it may be considered the combination of choice for thoracic surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":19958,"journal":{"name":"Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences","volume":"40 10","pages":"2219-2222"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11568697/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing thoracotomy: A comparison between total intravenous anesthesia and inhalation anesthesia.\",\"authors\":\"Joo-Yong Lee, Soon-Taek Jeong, Ji-Hye Hwang, Sang Hi Park\",\"doi\":\"10.12669/pjms.40.10.9907\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Propofol is more effective than inhalational anesthesia; however, the results for the management of acute pain remain controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the incidence of acute pain after inhalation anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia among patients who underwent thoracotomy at our hospital.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a single center retrospective observational study using data from electronic medical records. Sixty patients aged ≥20 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I or II who underwent regular and emergency thoracotomy between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2020, at Chungbuk National University Hospital were included in this study. The anesthesia and postoperative pain records of those who received total intravenous anesthesia (n=30) and inhalation anesthesia (n=30) were retrospectively reviewed. The pain score on the numeric rating scale (NRS) was evaluated at 2, 8, 24, and 30 hours postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average NRS score of patients who received total intravenous anesthesia was lesser than that of those who received inhalational anesthesia. Moreover, the difference in the NRS scores at eight hours postoperatively was statistically significant (P <0.05). Patients who received inhalational anesthesia had a higher pain score and experienced more severe pain than those who received intravenous anesthesia.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol-remifentanil provided better analgesia for acute postoperative pain in patients who underwent thoracotomy than inhalational anesthesia, suggesting it may be considered the combination of choice for thoracic surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19958,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences\",\"volume\":\"40 10\",\"pages\":\"2219-2222\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11568697/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.40.10.9907\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.40.10.9907","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:丙泊酚的麻醉效果优于吸入麻醉,但其治疗急性疼痛的效果仍存在争议。因此,本研究旨在确定在我院接受开胸手术的患者中,吸入麻醉和全静脉麻醉后急性疼痛的发生率:我们使用电子病历数据进行了一项单中心回顾性观察研究。研究纳入了忠北国立大学医院在 2016 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 1 月 1 日期间接受常规和急诊开胸手术的 60 名年龄≥20 岁、美国麻醉医师协会身体状况 I 级或 II 级的患者。对接受全静脉麻醉(30 人)和吸入麻醉(30 人)的患者的麻醉和术后疼痛记录进行了回顾性审查。对术后 2、8、24 和 30 小时的疼痛评分表(NRS)进行了评估:结果:接受全静脉麻醉的患者的平均 NRS 评分低于接受吸入麻醉的患者。此外,术后 8 小时的 NRS 评分差异具有统计学意义(P 结论:接受全静脉麻醉的患者的 NRS 评分低于接受吸入麻醉的患者:与吸入麻醉相比,使用丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼进行全静脉麻醉能更好地缓解开胸手术患者的术后急性疼痛,这表明丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼可作为开胸手术的首选麻醉组合。
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
Postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing thoracotomy: A comparison between total intravenous anesthesia and inhalation anesthesia.

Objective: Propofol is more effective than inhalational anesthesia; however, the results for the management of acute pain remain controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the incidence of acute pain after inhalation anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia among patients who underwent thoracotomy at our hospital.

Methods: We conducted a single center retrospective observational study using data from electronic medical records. Sixty patients aged ≥20 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I or II who underwent regular and emergency thoracotomy between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2020, at Chungbuk National University Hospital were included in this study. The anesthesia and postoperative pain records of those who received total intravenous anesthesia (n=30) and inhalation anesthesia (n=30) were retrospectively reviewed. The pain score on the numeric rating scale (NRS) was evaluated at 2, 8, 24, and 30 hours postoperatively.

Results: The average NRS score of patients who received total intravenous anesthesia was lesser than that of those who received inhalational anesthesia. Moreover, the difference in the NRS scores at eight hours postoperatively was statistically significant (P <0.05). Patients who received inhalational anesthesia had a higher pain score and experienced more severe pain than those who received intravenous anesthesia.

Conclusions: Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol-remifentanil provided better analgesia for acute postoperative pain in patients who underwent thoracotomy than inhalational anesthesia, suggesting it may be considered the combination of choice for thoracic surgery.

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 Journal of Medical Sciences
Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
363
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: It is a peer reviewed medical journal published regularly since 1984. It was previously known as quarterly "SPECIALIST" till December 31st 1999. It publishes original research articles, review articles, current practices, short communications & case reports. It attracts manuscripts not only from within Pakistan but also from over fifty countries from abroad. Copies of PJMS are sent to all the import medical libraries all over Pakistan and overseas particularly in South East Asia and Asia Pacific besides WHO EMRO Region countries. Eminent members of the medical profession at home and abroad regularly contribute their write-ups, manuscripts in our publications. We pursue an independent editorial policy, which allows an opportunity to the healthcare professionals to express their views without any fear or favour. That is why many opinion makers among the medical and pharmaceutical profession use this publication to communicate their viewpoint.
期刊最新文献
A day of shame. A comparison of the therapeutic efficacy of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and Entecavir in patients with chronic Hepatitis-B. Burden of congenital and hereditary anomalies and their epidemiological attributes in the pediatric and adult population of Peshawar valley, Pakistan. Clinical efficacy of Azadirachta indica based herbal mouthwash in treating the hypersensitivity of teeth. Clinical whole Exome Sequencing Reveals Novel Homozygous Missense Variant in the PMPCA Gene causing Autosomal Recessive Spinocerebellar Ataxia.
×
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