单间隙技术与双间隙技术用于脊髓硬膜外联合麻醉的临床比较。

Anesthesia, Essays and Researches Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-05-31 DOI:10.4103/aer.aer_19_22
Pyarejan Basheer, G C Brijesh, Raman Kumar, Shailesh Kumar, Priyesh Kumar, Jay Prakash
{"title":"单间隙技术与双间隙技术用于脊髓硬膜外联合麻醉的临床比较。","authors":"Pyarejan Basheer,&nbsp;G C Brijesh,&nbsp;Raman Kumar,&nbsp;Shailesh Kumar,&nbsp;Priyesh Kumar,&nbsp;Jay Prakash","doi":"10.4103/aer.aer_19_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (CSEA) is commonly performed by double space technique (DST) and single space segment technique (SST) or needle-through-needle technique (NNT).</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>We designed a double-blind randomized controlled study to compare the effect of the double-space technique with that of the single-space technique on time required by the procedure, the number of attempts, and a level of sensory, side effects and cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients undergoing elective lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under regional anesthesia were randomized to receive CSEA with either the double-space technique (double group, <i>n</i> = 30) or the single-space technique (single group, <i>n</i> = 30). In the single group, the procedure was performed at the L3-4 interspace using the needle-through-needle technique. In the double group, an epidural catheter was inserted at the L1-2 interspace, and dural puncture was performed at the L3-4 interspace.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The single space (needle-through-needle) technique for CSE takes less time, less number of spinal punctures. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of side effects. Sensory level at T10 on 5 min in group I was 90% and group II was 100% whereas at T8 it was 10% in group I; sensory level at T10, T8 and T6 on 10 min. in group I were 53.3%, 43.3% and 3.3% respectively whereas in group II were 80%, 16.7% and 3.3% respectively; sensory level at T10, T8, T6 and T4 on 15 min. in group I were 6.7%, 43.3%, 50% and 0% respectively whereas in group II were 23.3%, 50%, 23.3% and 3.3% respectively; and sensory level at T4, T6 and T8 on 20 min. in group I were 0%, 73.3% and 26.7% respectively whereas in group II were 16.7%, 33.3% and 50% respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Single-space (needle-through-needle) CSEA takes less time, less number of spinal punctures and results in improved patient satisfaction. There were no differences in intraoperative variables between the DST and SST for CSEA.</p>","PeriodicalId":7798,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches","volume":"16 1","pages":"36-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9558652/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Clinical Comparison between Single-Space Technique and Double-Space Technique for Combined Spinal and Epidural Anesthesia.\",\"authors\":\"Pyarejan Basheer,&nbsp;G C Brijesh,&nbsp;Raman Kumar,&nbsp;Shailesh Kumar,&nbsp;Priyesh Kumar,&nbsp;Jay Prakash\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/aer.aer_19_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (CSEA) is commonly performed by double space technique (DST) and single space segment technique (SST) or needle-through-needle technique (NNT).</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>We designed a double-blind randomized controlled study to compare the effect of the double-space technique with that of the single-space technique on time required by the procedure, the number of attempts, and a level of sensory, side effects and cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients undergoing elective lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under regional anesthesia were randomized to receive CSEA with either the double-space technique (double group, <i>n</i> = 30) or the single-space technique (single group, <i>n</i> = 30). In the single group, the procedure was performed at the L3-4 interspace using the needle-through-needle technique. In the double group, an epidural catheter was inserted at the L1-2 interspace, and dural puncture was performed at the L3-4 interspace.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The single space (needle-through-needle) technique for CSE takes less time, less number of spinal punctures. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of side effects. Sensory level at T10 on 5 min in group I was 90% and group II was 100% whereas at T8 it was 10% in group I; sensory level at T10, T8 and T6 on 10 min. in group I were 53.3%, 43.3% and 3.3% respectively whereas in group II were 80%, 16.7% and 3.3% respectively; sensory level at T10, T8, T6 and T4 on 15 min. in group I were 6.7%, 43.3%, 50% and 0% respectively whereas in group II were 23.3%, 50%, 23.3% and 3.3% respectively; and sensory level at T4, T6 and T8 on 20 min. in group I were 0%, 73.3% and 26.7% respectively whereas in group II were 16.7%, 33.3% and 50% respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Single-space (needle-through-needle) CSEA takes less time, less number of spinal punctures and results in improved patient satisfaction. There were no differences in intraoperative variables between the DST and SST for CSEA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7798,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"36-41\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9558652/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/aer.aer_19_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/5/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aer.aer_19_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/5/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:脊髓硬膜外联合麻醉(CSEA)通常采用双间隙技术(DST)和单间隙段技术(SST)或穿刺针技术(NNT)。目的和目的:我们设计了一项双盲随机对照研究,比较双间距技术与单间距技术在手术所需时间、尝试次数、感觉水平、副作用和成本效益方面的效果。材料与方法:选择在区域麻醉下择期行下腹、下肢手术的患者,随机分为双腔术(双组,n = 30)和单腔术(单组,n = 30)两组。在单组中,使用穿针技术在L3-4间隙进行手术。双组在L1-2间隙置入硬膜外导管,L3-4间隙行硬膜穿刺。结果:单间隙(针穿针)穿刺术穿刺时间短,穿刺次数少。两组在副作用方面没有差异。第1组在T10时5分钟的感觉水平为90%,第2组为100%,第1组在T8时为10%;1组T10、T8、T6在10min时的感觉水平分别为53.3%、43.3%和3.3%,而II组分别为80%、16.7%和3.3%;15 min时,I组T10、T8、T6、T4的感觉水平分别为6.7%、43.3%、50%和0%,II组分别为23.3%、50%、23.3%和3.3%;20 min时T4、T6、T8的感觉水平I组分别为0%、73.3%、26.7%,II组分别为16.7%、33.3%、50%。结论:单间隙(针穿针)CSEA穿刺时间短,穿刺次数少,患者满意度提高。CSEA的DST和SST在术中变量上无差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
A Clinical Comparison between Single-Space Technique and Double-Space Technique for Combined Spinal and Epidural Anesthesia.

Background: Combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (CSEA) is commonly performed by double space technique (DST) and single space segment technique (SST) or needle-through-needle technique (NNT).

Aims and objectives: We designed a double-blind randomized controlled study to compare the effect of the double-space technique with that of the single-space technique on time required by the procedure, the number of attempts, and a level of sensory, side effects and cost-effectiveness.

Materials and methods: Patients undergoing elective lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under regional anesthesia were randomized to receive CSEA with either the double-space technique (double group, n = 30) or the single-space technique (single group, n = 30). In the single group, the procedure was performed at the L3-4 interspace using the needle-through-needle technique. In the double group, an epidural catheter was inserted at the L1-2 interspace, and dural puncture was performed at the L3-4 interspace.

Results: The single space (needle-through-needle) technique for CSE takes less time, less number of spinal punctures. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of side effects. Sensory level at T10 on 5 min in group I was 90% and group II was 100% whereas at T8 it was 10% in group I; sensory level at T10, T8 and T6 on 10 min. in group I were 53.3%, 43.3% and 3.3% respectively whereas in group II were 80%, 16.7% and 3.3% respectively; sensory level at T10, T8, T6 and T4 on 15 min. in group I were 6.7%, 43.3%, 50% and 0% respectively whereas in group II were 23.3%, 50%, 23.3% and 3.3% respectively; and sensory level at T4, T6 and T8 on 20 min. in group I were 0%, 73.3% and 26.7% respectively whereas in group II were 16.7%, 33.3% and 50% respectively.

Conclusions: Single-space (needle-through-needle) CSEA takes less time, less number of spinal punctures and results in improved patient satisfaction. There were no differences in intraoperative variables between the DST and SST for CSEA.

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
A comparison of two prophylactic doses of ephedrine to attenuate the hemodynamic responses in adults receiving propofol in general anesthesia; a South Indian perspective Comparison of hemodynamic stability with continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring and intermittent oscillometric blood pressure monitoring in hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis Thoracic epidural analgesia vs. intravenous analgesia in blunt thoracic trauma patients, managed conservatively with noninvasive ventilation (NIV): A prospective observational study Comparison of postoperative analgesic effects of gelfoam soaked with ropivacaine 0.5% and gelfoam soaked with dexamethasone 8 mg with placebo in single-level lumbar laminectomy A Randomised Control Study Comparing C-MAC D-Blade Video Laryngoscope (Hyper Angulated Blade) and Macintosh Laryngoscope for Insertion of a Double-Lumen Tube in Patients Undergoing Elective Thoracotomy.
×
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