踝部手术中股腘阻滞与脊髓麻醉的比较

R. Sugathan, Reeba Mariya Mathews, Venugopalan Pg
{"title":"踝部手术中股腘阻滞与脊髓麻醉的比较","authors":"R. Sugathan, Reeba Mariya Mathews, Venugopalan Pg","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1761505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background and Aim  Surgery for malleolar fractures is associated with severe pain. Ultrasonography-guided nerve blocks have quality, precision, and drug dose reduction but are not preferred over spinal anesthesia. We have conducted a study to compare the effectiveness of femoropopliteal block with spinal anesthesia. Objective  The aim of this study was to compare onset, duration, and hemodynamic variability and total analgesic requirement of femoropopliteal block with spinal anesthesia. Methods  Preoperatively patients were divided into two groups (30 in each): Group 1—patients receiving spinal anesthesia with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine; Group 2—patients receiving 15 mL in popliteal block and 5 mL in femoral block of 20 mL 0.5% bupivacaine with 8 mg dexamethasone. Onset, duration, hemodynamic changes, and postoperative analgesia requirements were monitored. Results  Mean onset of sensory blockade in group 1 and 2 was 3.83 ± 0.92 and 12.68 ± 3.03 minutes ( p -value <0.001.) and motor blockade in group 1 and 2 was 5.36 ± 1.7 and 12.68 ± 3.03 minutes ( p -value <0.01), respectively. Mean duration of analgesia in group 1 and 2 was 3 ± 1.31 and 20.2 ± 4.7 hours, respectively. None of the patients in group 2 and 3% in group 1 had hypotension and bradycardia ( p -value > 0.05). The mean dose of morphine required in group 1 and 2 was 20.3 ± 2.1 and 3.56 ± 0.02 mg in 24 hours ( p -value < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion  Femoropopliteal block was slower in onset but produced longer postoperative analgesia with markedly reduced opioid consumption.","PeriodicalId":34302,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Recent Surgical and Medical Sciences","volume":"191 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Femoropopliteal Block versus Spinal Anesthesia for Malleolar Surgeries\",\"authors\":\"R. Sugathan, Reeba Mariya Mathews, Venugopalan Pg\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0043-1761505\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Background and Aim  Surgery for malleolar fractures is associated with severe pain. Ultrasonography-guided nerve blocks have quality, precision, and drug dose reduction but are not preferred over spinal anesthesia. We have conducted a study to compare the effectiveness of femoropopliteal block with spinal anesthesia. Objective  The aim of this study was to compare onset, duration, and hemodynamic variability and total analgesic requirement of femoropopliteal block with spinal anesthesia. Methods  Preoperatively patients were divided into two groups (30 in each): Group 1—patients receiving spinal anesthesia with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine; Group 2—patients receiving 15 mL in popliteal block and 5 mL in femoral block of 20 mL 0.5% bupivacaine with 8 mg dexamethasone. Onset, duration, hemodynamic changes, and postoperative analgesia requirements were monitored. Results  Mean onset of sensory blockade in group 1 and 2 was 3.83 ± 0.92 and 12.68 ± 3.03 minutes ( p -value <0.001.) and motor blockade in group 1 and 2 was 5.36 ± 1.7 and 12.68 ± 3.03 minutes ( p -value <0.01), respectively. Mean duration of analgesia in group 1 and 2 was 3 ± 1.31 and 20.2 ± 4.7 hours, respectively. None of the patients in group 2 and 3% in group 1 had hypotension and bradycardia ( p -value > 0.05). The mean dose of morphine required in group 1 and 2 was 20.3 ± 2.1 and 3.56 ± 0.02 mg in 24 hours ( p -value < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion  Femoropopliteal block was slower in onset but produced longer postoperative analgesia with markedly reduced opioid consumption.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34302,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Recent Surgical and Medical Sciences\",\"volume\":\"191 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Recent Surgical and Medical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1761505\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Recent Surgical and Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1761505","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

背景与目的外踝骨折的手术治疗伴有严重的疼痛。超声引导下的神经阻滞具有质量、精度和药物剂量减少的优点,但不如脊髓麻醉好。我们进行了一项研究,比较股腘动脉阻滞与脊髓麻醉的有效性。目的比较脊髓麻醉与股腘动脉阻滞的起始时间、持续时间、血流动力学变异性和总镇痛需求。方法术前将患者分为两组,每组30例:第一组:0.5%布比卡因高压压腰麻;2组患者接受0.5%布比卡因20 mL +地塞米松8 mg的腘窝阻滞15 mL,股动脉阻滞5 mL。监测发病、持续时间、血流动力学变化和术后镇痛需求。结果1、2组感觉阻滞发作时间平均为3.83±0.92分钟,12.68±3.03分钟(p值均为0.05)。1、2组小鼠24h吗啡平均需药量分别为20.3±2.1、3.56±0.02 mg (p值< 0.001)。结论股腘静脉阻滞起效较慢,术后镇痛时间较长,阿片类药物用量明显减少。
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
A Comparison of Femoropopliteal Block versus Spinal Anesthesia for Malleolar Surgeries
Abstract Background and Aim  Surgery for malleolar fractures is associated with severe pain. Ultrasonography-guided nerve blocks have quality, precision, and drug dose reduction but are not preferred over spinal anesthesia. We have conducted a study to compare the effectiveness of femoropopliteal block with spinal anesthesia. Objective  The aim of this study was to compare onset, duration, and hemodynamic variability and total analgesic requirement of femoropopliteal block with spinal anesthesia. Methods  Preoperatively patients were divided into two groups (30 in each): Group 1—patients receiving spinal anesthesia with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine; Group 2—patients receiving 15 mL in popliteal block and 5 mL in femoral block of 20 mL 0.5% bupivacaine with 8 mg dexamethasone. Onset, duration, hemodynamic changes, and postoperative analgesia requirements were monitored. Results  Mean onset of sensory blockade in group 1 and 2 was 3.83 ± 0.92 and 12.68 ± 3.03 minutes ( p -value <0.001.) and motor blockade in group 1 and 2 was 5.36 ± 1.7 and 12.68 ± 3.03 minutes ( p -value <0.01), respectively. Mean duration of analgesia in group 1 and 2 was 3 ± 1.31 and 20.2 ± 4.7 hours, respectively. None of the patients in group 2 and 3% in group 1 had hypotension and bradycardia ( p -value > 0.05). The mean dose of morphine required in group 1 and 2 was 20.3 ± 2.1 and 3.56 ± 0.02 mg in 24 hours ( p -value < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion  Femoropopliteal block was slower in onset but produced longer postoperative analgesia with markedly reduced opioid consumption.
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
32
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Cross-Sectional Study of Etiology and Clinico-Hematological Profile of Pancytopenia in Children at Tertiary Care Centre in Western India Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Environment for Post-Operative Pain Management A Study of Blood Viscosity and Inflammatory Biomarkers’ Levels in Bilateral Primary Varicose Veins/Reticular Veins as Predictive Markers A Study to Assess the Burden of Hematological Malignancies at a Tertiary Care Center A Study to Assess the Burden of Hematological Malignancies at a Tertiary Care Center
×
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