The effect of combined pudendal nerve and spermatic cord block or caudal epidural block on postoperative analgesia after posterior urethroplasty: a randomized trial.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Ying Zhou, Wen-Yi Gong, Jing-Yu Zhang, Chen-Guang Li, Bing Xu, Da-Qian Zhang, Kun Fan
{"title":"The effect of combined pudendal nerve and spermatic cord block or caudal epidural block on postoperative analgesia after posterior urethroplasty: a randomized trial.","authors":"Ying Zhou, Wen-Yi Gong, Jing-Yu Zhang, Chen-Guang Li, Bing Xu, Da-Qian Zhang, Kun Fan","doi":"10.1186/s12871-024-02744-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Postoperative pain management remains a significant challenge for patients undergoing posterior urethroplasty (PU). In a previous study, we proposed a novel technique of combined pudendal nerve (PN) and spermatic cord (SC) block to manage pain after PU. The present trial was conducted to test the hypothesis that this technique is effective for pain control after PU and provides longer-lasting analgesia than caudal epidural block (CB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty patients undergoing PU were randomized into two groups: Group NB received combined PN and SC block, and Group CB received CB. General anesthesia with a laryngeal mask was performed. The primary outcome was the postoperative analgesic duration, and the secondary outcomes included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores for pain and the number of patients with different motor scores of the lower limb at 3, 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two patients in Group CB were withdrawn due to block failure. The postoperative analgesic duration was statistically longer in Group NB compared with Group CB (mean difference [95% confidence interval], 115.78 min [17.80, 213.75]; P = 0.021). The NRS scores for pain at 12 and 24 h after surgery were statistically lower in Group NB compared with Group CB. Group NB had statistically more patients with motor score 0 at 3 h postoperatively than Group CB.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PN combined with SC block is an effective technique for postoperative analgesia in PU. This technique can achieve a longer duration of analgesia and lower pain scores, especially 12 h after surgery, than a CB.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Register (registration no. ChiCTR2100042971, registration date on 2/2/2021).</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11494940/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02744-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Postoperative pain management remains a significant challenge for patients undergoing posterior urethroplasty (PU). In a previous study, we proposed a novel technique of combined pudendal nerve (PN) and spermatic cord (SC) block to manage pain after PU. The present trial was conducted to test the hypothesis that this technique is effective for pain control after PU and provides longer-lasting analgesia than caudal epidural block (CB).

Methods: Sixty patients undergoing PU were randomized into two groups: Group NB received combined PN and SC block, and Group CB received CB. General anesthesia with a laryngeal mask was performed. The primary outcome was the postoperative analgesic duration, and the secondary outcomes included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores for pain and the number of patients with different motor scores of the lower limb at 3, 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively.

Results: Two patients in Group CB were withdrawn due to block failure. The postoperative analgesic duration was statistically longer in Group NB compared with Group CB (mean difference [95% confidence interval], 115.78 min [17.80, 213.75]; P = 0.021). The NRS scores for pain at 12 and 24 h after surgery were statistically lower in Group NB compared with Group CB. Group NB had statistically more patients with motor score 0 at 3 h postoperatively than Group CB.

Conclusions: PN combined with SC block is an effective technique for postoperative analgesia in PU. This technique can achieve a longer duration of analgesia and lower pain scores, especially 12 h after surgery, than a CB.

Trial registration: This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Register (registration no. ChiCTR2100042971, registration date on 2/2/2021).

后尿道成形术后阴茎神经和精索联合阻滞或尾硬膜外阻滞对术后镇痛的影响:随机试验。
背景:对于接受后尿道成形术(PU)的患者来说,术后疼痛控制仍是一项重大挑战。在之前的一项研究中,我们提出了一种新的技术,即结合阴茎神经(PN)和精索(SC)阻滞来控制 PU 术后疼痛。本试验旨在验证该技术是否能有效控制 PU 术后疼痛,且镇痛效果比尾侧硬膜外阻滞(CB)更持久这一假设:方法:60 名接受 PU 的患者被随机分为两组:NB组接受硬膜外和硬膜外联合阻滞,CB组接受硬膜外阻滞。使用喉罩进行全身麻醉。主要结果是术后镇痛持续时间,次要结果包括术后 3、6、12 和 24 小时的疼痛数字评定量表(NRS)评分和下肢运动评分不同的患者人数:结果:CB组有两名患者因阻滞失败而退出。与 CB 组相比,NB 组的术后镇痛时间更长(平均差异 [95% 置信区间],115.78 分钟 [17.80, 213.75];P = 0.021)。与 CB 组相比,NB 组术后 12 小时和 24 小时的疼痛 NRS 评分在统计学上更低。与 CB 组相比,NB 组术后 3 小时运动评分为 0 分的患者在统计学上更多:结论:PN 联合 SC 阻滞是 PU 术后镇痛的有效技术。结论:PN 联合 SC 阻滞是 PU 术后镇痛的有效技术,与 CB 相比,该技术可获得更长的镇痛时间和更低的疼痛评分,尤其是在术后 12 h:本研究已在中国临床试验注册中心注册(注册号:ChiCTR2100042971,注册日期:2021年2月2日)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信