Ming-Kai Chen, Le Zhao, Wei Luo, Kai Luo, Jie Lin, Yang Ji
{"title":"低容量罗哌卡因与大容量罗哌卡因在超声引导下双颌手术中上颌神经阻滞的有效性:一项随机非效性试验。","authors":"Ming-Kai Chen, Le Zhao, Wei Luo, Kai Luo, Jie Lin, Yang Ji","doi":"10.1007/s00266-025-04671-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ultrasound-guided maxillary nerve block (UGMNB) is applied in oral and maxillofacial surgery to improve perioperative analgesia, decrease the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and enhance recovery. However, the optimum volume of ropivacaine used for UGMNB is undetermined. Thus, it was hypothesized that in patients undergoing double-jaw surgery, low- and high-volume ropivacaine reduces perioperative pain with similar efficacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults undergoing double-jaw surgery were enrolled in a randomized non-inferiority trial to receive a bilateral single-injection UGMNB with 2 mL (low-volume [LV] group) or 5 mL (high-volume [HV] group) of 0.375% ropivacaine on each side. A visual analog scale (VAS) score for maxillary pain at 2 h postoperatively was taken as the primary outcome. VAS score for maxillary and mandibular pain at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively, hemodynamic changes intraoperatively, consumption of intraoperative opioids and sedatives, vasoactive medication use, extubation time, postoperative rescue analgesia, time to the first analgesia, postoperative nausea and vomiting and UGMNB-related complications within 48 h post-surgery were assessed as the secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-four adults were included. The maxillary pain score in the LV group was not inferior to that in the HV group at 2 h postoperatively, with a non-inferiority margin of 1 (mean difference - 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.6 to 0.8, P = 0.414 for non-inferiority). Maxillary and mandibular pain demonstrated no difference in the measured times between groups. The incidence of postoperative nausea was significantly higher in the LV group than that in the HV group at 6-24 h (12 (37.5%) vs. 5 (15.6%), P = 0.048). Moreover, no differences in intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, medications during anesthesia, time to extubation, rescue analgesia, time to the first analgesia, and postoperative vomiting were observed. Only one patient in the LV group was observed to have maxillary nerve block-related complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>To conclude, the efficacy of UGMNB with 2 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine has the same efficacy as the 5 mL drug in reducing perioperative pain in patients undergoing double-jaw surgery.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence i: </strong>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .</p>","PeriodicalId":7609,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of Low-Volume Versus High-Volume Ropivacaine for Ultrasound-Guided Maxillary Nerve Block in Double-Jaw Surgery: A Randomized Non-inferiority Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Ming-Kai Chen, Le Zhao, Wei Luo, Kai Luo, Jie Lin, Yang Ji\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00266-025-04671-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ultrasound-guided maxillary nerve block (UGMNB) is applied in oral and maxillofacial surgery to improve perioperative analgesia, decrease the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and enhance recovery. However, the optimum volume of ropivacaine used for UGMNB is undetermined. Thus, it was hypothesized that in patients undergoing double-jaw surgery, low- and high-volume ropivacaine reduces perioperative pain with similar efficacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults undergoing double-jaw surgery were enrolled in a randomized non-inferiority trial to receive a bilateral single-injection UGMNB with 2 mL (low-volume [LV] group) or 5 mL (high-volume [HV] group) of 0.375% ropivacaine on each side. A visual analog scale (VAS) score for maxillary pain at 2 h postoperatively was taken as the primary outcome. VAS score for maxillary and mandibular pain at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively, hemodynamic changes intraoperatively, consumption of intraoperative opioids and sedatives, vasoactive medication use, extubation time, postoperative rescue analgesia, time to the first analgesia, postoperative nausea and vomiting and UGMNB-related complications within 48 h post-surgery were assessed as the secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-four adults were included. The maxillary pain score in the LV group was not inferior to that in the HV group at 2 h postoperatively, with a non-inferiority margin of 1 (mean difference - 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.6 to 0.8, P = 0.414 for non-inferiority). Maxillary and mandibular pain demonstrated no difference in the measured times between groups. The incidence of postoperative nausea was significantly higher in the LV group than that in the HV group at 6-24 h (12 (37.5%) vs. 5 (15.6%), P = 0.048). Moreover, no differences in intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, medications during anesthesia, time to extubation, rescue analgesia, time to the first analgesia, and postoperative vomiting were observed. Only one patient in the LV group was observed to have maxillary nerve block-related complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>To conclude, the efficacy of UGMNB with 2 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine has the same efficacy as the 5 mL drug in reducing perioperative pain in patients undergoing double-jaw surgery.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence i: </strong>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-025-04671-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-025-04671-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effectiveness of Low-Volume Versus High-Volume Ropivacaine for Ultrasound-Guided Maxillary Nerve Block in Double-Jaw Surgery: A Randomized Non-inferiority Trial.
Background: Ultrasound-guided maxillary nerve block (UGMNB) is applied in oral and maxillofacial surgery to improve perioperative analgesia, decrease the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and enhance recovery. However, the optimum volume of ropivacaine used for UGMNB is undetermined. Thus, it was hypothesized that in patients undergoing double-jaw surgery, low- and high-volume ropivacaine reduces perioperative pain with similar efficacy.
Methods: Adults undergoing double-jaw surgery were enrolled in a randomized non-inferiority trial to receive a bilateral single-injection UGMNB with 2 mL (low-volume [LV] group) or 5 mL (high-volume [HV] group) of 0.375% ropivacaine on each side. A visual analog scale (VAS) score for maxillary pain at 2 h postoperatively was taken as the primary outcome. VAS score for maxillary and mandibular pain at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively, hemodynamic changes intraoperatively, consumption of intraoperative opioids and sedatives, vasoactive medication use, extubation time, postoperative rescue analgesia, time to the first analgesia, postoperative nausea and vomiting and UGMNB-related complications within 48 h post-surgery were assessed as the secondary outcomes.
Results: Sixty-four adults were included. The maxillary pain score in the LV group was not inferior to that in the HV group at 2 h postoperatively, with a non-inferiority margin of 1 (mean difference - 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.6 to 0.8, P = 0.414 for non-inferiority). Maxillary and mandibular pain demonstrated no difference in the measured times between groups. The incidence of postoperative nausea was significantly higher in the LV group than that in the HV group at 6-24 h (12 (37.5%) vs. 5 (15.6%), P = 0.048). Moreover, no differences in intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, medications during anesthesia, time to extubation, rescue analgesia, time to the first analgesia, and postoperative vomiting were observed. Only one patient in the LV group was observed to have maxillary nerve block-related complications.
Conclusions: To conclude, the efficacy of UGMNB with 2 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine has the same efficacy as the 5 mL drug in reducing perioperative pain in patients undergoing double-jaw surgery.
Level of evidence i: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
期刊介绍:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is a publication of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and the official journal of the European Association of Societies of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (EASAPS), Società Italiana di Chirurgia Plastica Ricostruttiva ed Estetica (SICPRE), Vereinigung der Deutschen Aesthetisch Plastischen Chirurgen (VDAPC), the Romanian Aesthetic Surgery Society (RASS), Asociación Española de Cirugía Estética Plástica (AECEP), La Sociedad Argentina de Cirugía Plástica, Estética y Reparadora (SACPER), the Rhinoplasty Society of Europe (RSE), the Iranian Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgeons (ISPAS), the Singapore Association of Plastic Surgeons (SAPS), the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS), the Egyptian Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (ESPRS), and the Sociedad Chilena de Cirugía Plástica, Reconstructiva y Estética (SCCP).
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery provides a forum for original articles advancing the art of aesthetic plastic surgery. Many describe surgical craftsmanship; others deal with complications in surgical procedures and methods by which to treat or avoid them. Coverage includes "second thoughts" on established techniques, which might be abandoned, modified, or improved. Also included are case histories; improvements in surgical instruments, pharmaceuticals, and operating room equipment; and discussions of problems such as the role of psychosocial factors in the doctor-patient and the patient-public interrelationships.
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is covered in Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, SciSearch, Research Alert, Index Medicus-Medline, and Excerpta Medica/Embase.