0.75%无糖罗哌卡因两种不同剂量腰麻在剖宫产术中的疗效和安全性比较

Acta anaesthesiologica Sinica Pub Date : 2003-09-01
John On-Nin Wong, Thomas Dou-Moo Tan, Pak-On Leung, Kin-Fui Tseng, Ning-Wei Cheu
{"title":"0.75%无糖罗哌卡因两种不同剂量腰麻在剖宫产术中的疗效和安全性比较","authors":"John On-Nin Wong,&nbsp;Thomas Dou-Moo Tan,&nbsp;Pak-On Leung,&nbsp;Kin-Fui Tseng,&nbsp;Ning-Wei Cheu","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We compared the clinical efficacy and safety between 2 doses of 2.5 ml (18.75 mg) and 3 ml (22.5 mg) of 0.75% glucose free spinal ropivacaine in Chinese parturients undergoing Cesarean section.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomized, open-label study, 40 parturients enrolled were divided into two groups: Group A received a 2.5 ml 0.75% ropivacaine as opposed to 3 ml in Group B. Sensory and motor blocks were assessed during and after surgery until complete recovery. Eight standard measurements were taken: time at onset of sensory block; maximum cephalic sensory spread; maximum number of blocked segments; time to maximum sensory block; duration of sensory block at L3; time at onset of complete motor block and duration until complete recovery. Vital signs and any adverse effects related to spinal anesthesia were also recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five of the 6 variables showed no significant difference between groups A and B: onset time of sensory block at L3 was 1.8 +/- 6.7 min vs. 2.3 +/- 9.8 min; maximum cephalic spread was T3-4 (C3-T7) vs. T3 (C2-T8); maximum number of blocked segments was 20.7 +/- 3.5 vs. 20.2 +/- 3.4; time to maximum sensory block 15.4 +/- 5.5 min vs. 20.3 +/- 15.1 min; time for regression to L3 was 200.8 +/- 59.5 min vs. 215.0 +/- 37.6 min and time for complete recovery of motor block 208.5 +/- 55.5 min vs. 226.5 +/- 461. min. Group B had a significantly faster onset time for complete motor block (P < 0.05) 15.4 +/- 5.6 min vs. 10.4 +/- 4.7 min. Moreover, there were no significant differences in global hemodynamic changes during and after the operation. Transient hypotension attacks were more frequent in group A at the beginning of anesthesia, perhaps due to inadequate prehydration. Otherwise, there were no differences in adverse effects during or after surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We conclude that for Cesarean section in Chinese parturients either 18.75 mg (2.5 ml) or 22.5 mg (3 ml) 0.75% glucose-free ropivacaine can provide a spinal anesthesia of the same efficacy and safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":79312,"journal":{"name":"Acta anaesthesiologica Sinica","volume":"41 3","pages":"131-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Spinal anesthesia with two different dosages of 0.75% glucose-free ropivacaine: a comparison of efficacy and safety in Chinese parturients undergoing cesarean section.\",\"authors\":\"John On-Nin Wong,&nbsp;Thomas Dou-Moo Tan,&nbsp;Pak-On Leung,&nbsp;Kin-Fui Tseng,&nbsp;Ning-Wei Cheu\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We compared the clinical efficacy and safety between 2 doses of 2.5 ml (18.75 mg) and 3 ml (22.5 mg) of 0.75% glucose free spinal ropivacaine in Chinese parturients undergoing Cesarean section.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomized, open-label study, 40 parturients enrolled were divided into two groups: Group A received a 2.5 ml 0.75% ropivacaine as opposed to 3 ml in Group B. Sensory and motor blocks were assessed during and after surgery until complete recovery. Eight standard measurements were taken: time at onset of sensory block; maximum cephalic sensory spread; maximum number of blocked segments; time to maximum sensory block; duration of sensory block at L3; time at onset of complete motor block and duration until complete recovery. Vital signs and any adverse effects related to spinal anesthesia were also recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five of the 6 variables showed no significant difference between groups A and B: onset time of sensory block at L3 was 1.8 +/- 6.7 min vs. 2.3 +/- 9.8 min; maximum cephalic spread was T3-4 (C3-T7) vs. T3 (C2-T8); maximum number of blocked segments was 20.7 +/- 3.5 vs. 20.2 +/- 3.4; time to maximum sensory block 15.4 +/- 5.5 min vs. 20.3 +/- 15.1 min; time for regression to L3 was 200.8 +/- 59.5 min vs. 215.0 +/- 37.6 min and time for complete recovery of motor block 208.5 +/- 55.5 min vs. 226.5 +/- 461. min. Group B had a significantly faster onset time for complete motor block (P < 0.05) 15.4 +/- 5.6 min vs. 10.4 +/- 4.7 min. Moreover, there were no significant differences in global hemodynamic changes during and after the operation. Transient hypotension attacks were more frequent in group A at the beginning of anesthesia, perhaps due to inadequate prehydration. Otherwise, there were no differences in adverse effects during or after surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We conclude that for Cesarean section in Chinese parturients either 18.75 mg (2.5 ml) or 22.5 mg (3 ml) 0.75% glucose-free ropivacaine can provide a spinal anesthesia of the same efficacy and safety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79312,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta anaesthesiologica Sinica\",\"volume\":\"41 3\",\"pages\":\"131-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta anaesthesiologica Sinica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta anaesthesiologica Sinica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:我们比较了0.75%无糖脊髓性罗哌卡因2.5 ml (18.75 mg)和3 ml (22.5 mg)两种剂量在剖宫产术中应用的临床疗效和安全性。方法:在这项随机、开放标签的研究中,40名入组的孕妇被分为两组:A组接受2.5 ml 0.75%罗哌卡因,而b组接受3 ml罗哌卡因。在手术期间和手术后评估感觉和运动阻滞,直到完全恢复。采用八项标准测量:感觉阻滞发生时间;最大的头侧感觉扩散;最大阻塞段数;达到最大感觉阻塞的时间;L3感觉阻滞持续时间;完全运动阻滞的开始时间和完全恢复的持续时间。同时记录生命体征和与脊髓麻醉相关的任何不良反应。结果:A组和B组6个变量中有5个变量差异无统计学意义:L3感觉阻滞发生时间分别为1.8 +/- 6.7 min和2.3 +/- 9.8 min;最大的头侧扩散为T3-4 (C3-T7)和T3 (C2-T8);最大阻滞片段数为20.7 +/- 3.5 vs. 20.2 +/- 3.4;最大感觉阻滞时间15.4 +/- 5.5 min vs. 20.3 +/- 15.1 min;L3恢复时间分别为200.8 +/- 59.5 min和215.0 +/- 37.6 min,运动块完全恢复时间分别为208.5 +/- 55.5 min和226.5 +/- 461 min。B组完全运动阻滞的起效时间(15.4 +/- 5.6 min)明显高于10.4 +/- 4.7 min (P < 0.05)。此外,术中和术后整体血流动力学变化无显著差异。A组在麻醉开始时短暂性低血压发作更为频繁,可能是由于预水合不足。除此之外,手术期间和术后的不良反应没有差异。结论:18.75 mg (2.5 ml)或22.5 mg (3ml) 0.75%无糖罗哌卡因均可为剖宫产术患者提供相同疗效和安全性的脊髓麻醉。
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
Spinal anesthesia with two different dosages of 0.75% glucose-free ropivacaine: a comparison of efficacy and safety in Chinese parturients undergoing cesarean section.

Background: We compared the clinical efficacy and safety between 2 doses of 2.5 ml (18.75 mg) and 3 ml (22.5 mg) of 0.75% glucose free spinal ropivacaine in Chinese parturients undergoing Cesarean section.

Methods: In this randomized, open-label study, 40 parturients enrolled were divided into two groups: Group A received a 2.5 ml 0.75% ropivacaine as opposed to 3 ml in Group B. Sensory and motor blocks were assessed during and after surgery until complete recovery. Eight standard measurements were taken: time at onset of sensory block; maximum cephalic sensory spread; maximum number of blocked segments; time to maximum sensory block; duration of sensory block at L3; time at onset of complete motor block and duration until complete recovery. Vital signs and any adverse effects related to spinal anesthesia were also recorded.

Results: Five of the 6 variables showed no significant difference between groups A and B: onset time of sensory block at L3 was 1.8 +/- 6.7 min vs. 2.3 +/- 9.8 min; maximum cephalic spread was T3-4 (C3-T7) vs. T3 (C2-T8); maximum number of blocked segments was 20.7 +/- 3.5 vs. 20.2 +/- 3.4; time to maximum sensory block 15.4 +/- 5.5 min vs. 20.3 +/- 15.1 min; time for regression to L3 was 200.8 +/- 59.5 min vs. 215.0 +/- 37.6 min and time for complete recovery of motor block 208.5 +/- 55.5 min vs. 226.5 +/- 461. min. Group B had a significantly faster onset time for complete motor block (P < 0.05) 15.4 +/- 5.6 min vs. 10.4 +/- 4.7 min. Moreover, there were no significant differences in global hemodynamic changes during and after the operation. Transient hypotension attacks were more frequent in group A at the beginning of anesthesia, perhaps due to inadequate prehydration. Otherwise, there were no differences in adverse effects during or after surgery.

Conclusions: We conclude that for Cesarean section in Chinese parturients either 18.75 mg (2.5 ml) or 22.5 mg (3 ml) 0.75% glucose-free ropivacaine can provide a spinal anesthesia of the same efficacy and safety.

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
0
期刊最新文献
The contemporary undergraduate education of anesthesia in Taiwan. Unexpected intraoperative hypercapnia due to undetected expiratory valve dysfunction--a case report. Minimal low-flow isoflurane-based anesthesia benefits patients undergoing coronary revascularization via preventing hyperglycemia and maintaining metabolic homeostasis. A two-center survey of cardiac events and peri-operative managements of cardiac patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery in Taiwanese population. Comparison of the recovery from isoflurane anesthesia with or without fentanyl infusion in patients undergoing elective supratentorial craniotomy.
×
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