腹内压力对最大鞘内感觉阻滞水平的影响:一项初步随机对照试验

Jubin Jakhar, Michell Gulabani, A. Tyagi, A. Sethi
{"title":"腹内压力对最大鞘内感觉阻滞水平的影响:一项初步随机对照试验","authors":"Jubin Jakhar, Michell Gulabani, A. Tyagi, A. Sethi","doi":"10.4103/JOACC.JOACC_41_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Increase in Intra-Abdominal Pressure (IAP) is commonly accepted as a cause for intrathecal dose sparing and consequently higher level of sensory block during pregnancy. There is however very little actual data evaluating the relationship. Thus, we aimed to evaluate association between IAP and maximum level of sensory block following intrathecal injection of hyperbaric bupivacaine as well as plain levobupivacaine for cesarean section. Methods: Preliminary randomized controlled blinded trial included females aged 18-40 years, scheduled for elective cesarean section under single-shot subarachnoid block. After randomization, they received either intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine (group H) or plain (isobaric) levobupivacaine (group P) in a dose of 12.5 mg (n = 40 each). IAP was measured before and after the spinal block, using the recommended intravesical technique. The maximum level of sensory block and the IAPs were measured in each patient. Results: There was no significant correlation of IAPprespinal with maximum level of sensory block for group H (P = 0.334; rs = -0.157) or group P (P = 0.637; rs = -0.078). Similarly, there was no significant correlation of the IAPpostspinal: group H (P = 0.370; rs = -0.145); and group P (P = 0.714; rs = -0.061). Both group H and group P had similar IAPprespinal (15.9 [14.3-18.2] and 15.3 [14.3-17.4] mmHg, respectively) (P = 0.474); as well as IAPpostspinal (15.2 [13.8-17.2] and 14.6 [13.4-16.0] mmH, g respectively) (P = 0.239). Among ancillary observations, duration of sensory block was significantly longer for group P versus group H (133.6 ± 24.2 and 103 ± 23.4 mins; P < 0.000). However, the maximum levels of sensory and motor block, respective times required to achieve them, as well as incidences of intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia were statistically similar between group H and group P (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The IAP was raised to the level of conventionally defined intra-abdominal hypertension (>12 mmHg) in patients scheduled for elective cesarean section. However, despite being increased, the IAPprespinal or IAPpostspinal did not show any significant association with the maximum level of sensory block (P > 0.05).","PeriodicalId":16611,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetric Anaesthesia and Critical Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of intra-abdominal pressure on maximum level of intrathecal sensory block: A preliminary randomized controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Jubin Jakhar, Michell Gulabani, A. Tyagi, A. Sethi\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/JOACC.JOACC_41_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: Increase in Intra-Abdominal Pressure (IAP) is commonly accepted as a cause for intrathecal dose sparing and consequently higher level of sensory block during pregnancy. There is however very little actual data evaluating the relationship. Thus, we aimed to evaluate association between IAP and maximum level of sensory block following intrathecal injection of hyperbaric bupivacaine as well as plain levobupivacaine for cesarean section. Methods: Preliminary randomized controlled blinded trial included females aged 18-40 years, scheduled for elective cesarean section under single-shot subarachnoid block. After randomization, they received either intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine (group H) or plain (isobaric) levobupivacaine (group P) in a dose of 12.5 mg (n = 40 each). IAP was measured before and after the spinal block, using the recommended intravesical technique. The maximum level of sensory block and the IAPs were measured in each patient. Results: There was no significant correlation of IAPprespinal with maximum level of sensory block for group H (P = 0.334; rs = -0.157) or group P (P = 0.637; rs = -0.078). Similarly, there was no significant correlation of the IAPpostspinal: group H (P = 0.370; rs = -0.145); and group P (P = 0.714; rs = -0.061). Both group H and group P had similar IAPprespinal (15.9 [14.3-18.2] and 15.3 [14.3-17.4] mmHg, respectively) (P = 0.474); as well as IAPpostspinal (15.2 [13.8-17.2] and 14.6 [13.4-16.0] mmH, g respectively) (P = 0.239). Among ancillary observations, duration of sensory block was significantly longer for group P versus group H (133.6 ± 24.2 and 103 ± 23.4 mins; P < 0.000). However, the maximum levels of sensory and motor block, respective times required to achieve them, as well as incidences of intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia were statistically similar between group H and group P (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The IAP was raised to the level of conventionally defined intra-abdominal hypertension (>12 mmHg) in patients scheduled for elective cesarean section. However, despite being increased, the IAPprespinal or IAPpostspinal did not show any significant association with the maximum level of sensory block (P > 0.05).\",\"PeriodicalId\":16611,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Obstetric Anaesthesia and Critical Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Obstetric Anaesthesia and Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/JOACC.JOACC_41_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetric Anaesthesia and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/JOACC.JOACC_41_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:腹腔内压(IAP)升高通常被认为是鞘内剂量节省的原因,从而导致妊娠期间感觉阻滞水平升高。然而,评估这种关系的实际数据很少。因此,我们旨在评估IAP与剖宫产鞘内注射高压布比卡因和左旋布比卡因后最大感觉阻滞水平之间的关系。方法:初步随机对照盲法试验包括18-40岁的女性,计划在单次蛛网膜下腔阻滞下进行选择性剖宫产。随机分组后,他们接受鞘内高压布比卡因(H组)或普通(等压)左旋布比卡因治疗(P组),剂量为12.5mg(每组n=40)。采用推荐的膀胱内灌注技术,在脊椎阻滞前后测量IAP。测量每位患者的最大感觉阻滞水平和IAP。结果:H组(P=0.334;rs=-0.157)或P组(P=0.637;rs=-0.078)的椎前IAP与感觉阻滞最大水平无显著相关性;H组和P组的蛛网膜下腔压相似(分别为15.9[14.3-18.2]和15.3[14.3-17.4]mmHg)(P=0.474);以及脊髓后IAP(分别为15.2[13.8-17.2]和14.6[13.4-16.0]mmH,g)(P=0.029)。在辅助观察中,P组的感觉阻滞持续时间明显长于H组(133.6±24.2和103±23.4分钟;P<0.0000)。然而,感觉和运动阻滞的最大水平,实现它们所需的时间,以及术中低血压和心动过缓的发生率在H组和P组之间具有统计学相似性(P>0.05)。然而,尽管棘前或棘后IAP增加,但与感觉阻滞的最大水平没有任何显著关联(P>0.05)。
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
Effect of intra-abdominal pressure on maximum level of intrathecal sensory block: A preliminary randomized controlled trial
Objectives: Increase in Intra-Abdominal Pressure (IAP) is commonly accepted as a cause for intrathecal dose sparing and consequently higher level of sensory block during pregnancy. There is however very little actual data evaluating the relationship. Thus, we aimed to evaluate association between IAP and maximum level of sensory block following intrathecal injection of hyperbaric bupivacaine as well as plain levobupivacaine for cesarean section. Methods: Preliminary randomized controlled blinded trial included females aged 18-40 years, scheduled for elective cesarean section under single-shot subarachnoid block. After randomization, they received either intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine (group H) or plain (isobaric) levobupivacaine (group P) in a dose of 12.5 mg (n = 40 each). IAP was measured before and after the spinal block, using the recommended intravesical technique. The maximum level of sensory block and the IAPs were measured in each patient. Results: There was no significant correlation of IAPprespinal with maximum level of sensory block for group H (P = 0.334; rs = -0.157) or group P (P = 0.637; rs = -0.078). Similarly, there was no significant correlation of the IAPpostspinal: group H (P = 0.370; rs = -0.145); and group P (P = 0.714; rs = -0.061). Both group H and group P had similar IAPprespinal (15.9 [14.3-18.2] and 15.3 [14.3-17.4] mmHg, respectively) (P = 0.474); as well as IAPpostspinal (15.2 [13.8-17.2] and 14.6 [13.4-16.0] mmH, g respectively) (P = 0.239). Among ancillary observations, duration of sensory block was significantly longer for group P versus group H (133.6 ± 24.2 and 103 ± 23.4 mins; P < 0.000). However, the maximum levels of sensory and motor block, respective times required to achieve them, as well as incidences of intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia were statistically similar between group H and group P (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The IAP was raised to the level of conventionally defined intra-abdominal hypertension (>12 mmHg) in patients scheduled for elective cesarean section. However, despite being increased, the IAPprespinal or IAPpostspinal did not show any significant association with the maximum level of sensory block (P > 0.05).
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
37
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊最新文献
To study maternal hypotension, side-effects and fetal acid-base balance during cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia using prophylactic infusion doses of 25 and 50 μg/Min phenylephrine Takotsubo cardiomyopathy in pregnancy: A focused review Comparative evaluation of two doses of phenylephrine infusion to prevent intra-operative nausea and vomiting during elective obstetric spinal anesthesia Carbetocin: Are we ready for a paradigm shift? Evaluation of perfusion index as a screening tool for prediction of hypotension and shivering in cesarean section
×
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