腹腔镜胆囊切除术后超声引导竖脊阻滞与端口浸润镇痛效果比较

IF 0.6 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2023-07-04 DOI:10.1080/11101849.2023.2230049
Magdy Mohammed Mahdy, E. E. Abdelhakeem, A. Fawzy, M. S. Abbas
{"title":"腹腔镜胆囊切除术后超声引导竖脊阻滞与端口浸润镇痛效果比较","authors":"Magdy Mohammed Mahdy, E. E. Abdelhakeem, A. Fawzy, M. S. Abbas","doi":"10.1080/11101849.2023.2230049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background One of the foremost common medical reasons for delayed discharge following ambulatory surgery is pain. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a comparatively new technique utilized for intra‑ and post‑operative analgesia. We aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of ESPB with port site infiltration in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) patients. Methods Forty-four patients 18–60 years old with body mass index (BMI) of 18–35 kg/m2 who were scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized into two groups (22 patients each) either to obtain an ultrasound‑guided Bilateral ESPB (group A) or port‑site infiltration of local anesthetic (group B) after anesthesia induction. The primary outcome was the total postoperative nalbuphine consumption in the first 24 h. Results The overall amount of rescue analgesia was significantly lower in group A (8.27 ± 1.12 mg for nalbuphine as first-line rescue analgesic and 10 patients needed ketorolac as second line rescue analgesic) than in group B (15.92 ± 2.11 mg for nalbuphine as first-line rescue analgesic and 22 patients needed ketorolac as second-line rescue analgesic) during the first 24 h postoperatively. The time to first analgesic request showed statistically significant difference between the two groups with longer time in group A (p value < 0.001). The numerical rate score at rest and when coughing was significantly lower in group A than group B. Conclusion Erector spinae plane block was superior to port site infiltration regarding decrease in analgesic consumption and prolongation in time of postoperative rescue analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.","PeriodicalId":11437,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae block with port site infiltration following laparoscopic cholecystectomy\",\"authors\":\"Magdy Mohammed Mahdy, E. E. Abdelhakeem, A. Fawzy, M. S. Abbas\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/11101849.2023.2230049\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Background One of the foremost common medical reasons for delayed discharge following ambulatory surgery is pain. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a comparatively new technique utilized for intra‑ and post‑operative analgesia. We aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of ESPB with port site infiltration in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) patients. Methods Forty-four patients 18–60 years old with body mass index (BMI) of 18–35 kg/m2 who were scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized into two groups (22 patients each) either to obtain an ultrasound‑guided Bilateral ESPB (group A) or port‑site infiltration of local anesthetic (group B) after anesthesia induction. The primary outcome was the total postoperative nalbuphine consumption in the first 24 h. Results The overall amount of rescue analgesia was significantly lower in group A (8.27 ± 1.12 mg for nalbuphine as first-line rescue analgesic and 10 patients needed ketorolac as second line rescue analgesic) than in group B (15.92 ± 2.11 mg for nalbuphine as first-line rescue analgesic and 22 patients needed ketorolac as second-line rescue analgesic) during the first 24 h postoperatively. The time to first analgesic request showed statistically significant difference between the two groups with longer time in group A (p value < 0.001). The numerical rate score at rest and when coughing was significantly lower in group A than group B. Conclusion Erector spinae plane block was superior to port site infiltration regarding decrease in analgesic consumption and prolongation in time of postoperative rescue analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/11101849.2023.2230049\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11101849.2023.2230049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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
Comparison of analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae block with port site infiltration following laparoscopic cholecystectomy
ABSTRACT Background One of the foremost common medical reasons for delayed discharge following ambulatory surgery is pain. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a comparatively new technique utilized for intra‑ and post‑operative analgesia. We aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of ESPB with port site infiltration in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) patients. Methods Forty-four patients 18–60 years old with body mass index (BMI) of 18–35 kg/m2 who were scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized into two groups (22 patients each) either to obtain an ultrasound‑guided Bilateral ESPB (group A) or port‑site infiltration of local anesthetic (group B) after anesthesia induction. The primary outcome was the total postoperative nalbuphine consumption in the first 24 h. Results The overall amount of rescue analgesia was significantly lower in group A (8.27 ± 1.12 mg for nalbuphine as first-line rescue analgesic and 10 patients needed ketorolac as second line rescue analgesic) than in group B (15.92 ± 2.11 mg for nalbuphine as first-line rescue analgesic and 22 patients needed ketorolac as second-line rescue analgesic) during the first 24 h postoperatively. The time to first analgesic request showed statistically significant difference between the two groups with longer time in group A (p value < 0.001). The numerical rate score at rest and when coughing was significantly lower in group A than group B. Conclusion Erector spinae plane block was superior to port site infiltration regarding decrease in analgesic consumption and prolongation in time of postoperative rescue analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
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
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
78
期刊最新文献
Intrathecal levo-bupivacaine versus hyperbaric bupivacaine for inguinal hernia repairs in ex-preterm infants: A double blinded randomized prospective study Comparison of two different methods as reliable predictors of successful caudal block in children Effect of sevoflurane versus propofol on early cognitive functions in elderly patients after lumbar disc surgery Muscle wasting assessed by ultrasound versus scoring systems as early predictor of outcomes of intensive care unit stay in critically ill patients Posterior quadratus lumborum versus caudal epidural block for perioperative analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing upper abdominal surgeries: Arandomized, double-blind trial
×
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