{"title":"单侧腹股沟疝脊髓麻醉与竖脊平面阻滞的比较:随机临床试验。","authors":"Mustafa Kaçmaz, Hacı Bolat, Alirıza Erdoğan","doi":"10.4103/jmas.jmas_367_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The objective of our study was to compare erector spinae plane block (ESP) with spinal anaesthesia (SA) for inguinal hernia repair with respect to anaesthetic efficacy, post-operative analgesia, mobilisation, discharge, complication and side effects.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>The study included 52 patients over 50 years of age, with the American Society of Anaesthesia physical status Class I-III. Group ESP ( n = 26) was applied 30 ml of mixed local anaesthetic mixture applied at the L1 level to the plane of the erector spinae and 10 ml of tumescent when necessary, while Group SA ( n = 26) was applied 3 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine at the L3-L4/L2-L3 level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Intraoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) value was lower in Group S, whereas the 6 th -h VAS value was lower in Group ESP ( P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the VAS values at hour 12 and 24 ( P > 0.05). Reaching post-anaesthesia discharge criteria 9 and time to mobilisation and oral feeding was shorter in Group ESP, whereas post-procedure waiting time was shorter in Group S ( P < 0.05). While the need for post-operative analgesics was higher in Group S ( P < 0.05), there was a high level of patient satisfaction in Group ESP ( P = 0.05). Intraoperative midazolam requirement was lower in Group S, post-operative diclofenac requirement was lower in Group ESP ( P < 0.05), post-operative urinary retention and tremor were higher in Group S ( P = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESP block provides adequate surgical anaesthesia compared to SA (non-inferiority) for inguinal hernia repair. It is associated with less analgesic requirement, low post-operative pain, less complication rate and high patient satisfaction in the post-operative period.</p>","PeriodicalId":48905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"154-162"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11095813/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of spinal anaesthesia and erector spinae plane block in unilateral inguinal hernia: Randomised clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Mustafa Kaçmaz, Hacı Bolat, Alirıza Erdoğan\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jmas.jmas_367_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The objective of our study was to compare erector spinae plane block (ESP) with spinal anaesthesia (SA) for inguinal hernia repair with respect to anaesthetic efficacy, post-operative analgesia, mobilisation, discharge, complication and side effects.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>The study included 52 patients over 50 years of age, with the American Society of Anaesthesia physical status Class I-III. Group ESP ( n = 26) was applied 30 ml of mixed local anaesthetic mixture applied at the L1 level to the plane of the erector spinae and 10 ml of tumescent when necessary, while Group SA ( n = 26) was applied 3 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine at the L3-L4/L2-L3 level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Intraoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) value was lower in Group S, whereas the 6 th -h VAS value was lower in Group ESP ( P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the VAS values at hour 12 and 24 ( P > 0.05). Reaching post-anaesthesia discharge criteria 9 and time to mobilisation and oral feeding was shorter in Group ESP, whereas post-procedure waiting time was shorter in Group S ( P < 0.05). While the need for post-operative analgesics was higher in Group S ( P < 0.05), there was a high level of patient satisfaction in Group ESP ( P = 0.05). Intraoperative midazolam requirement was lower in Group S, post-operative diclofenac requirement was lower in Group ESP ( P < 0.05), post-operative urinary retention and tremor were higher in Group S ( P = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESP block provides adequate surgical anaesthesia compared to SA (non-inferiority) for inguinal hernia repair. It is associated with less analgesic requirement, low post-operative pain, less complication rate and high patient satisfaction in the post-operative period.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"154-162\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11095813/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_367_22\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_367_22","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
简介我们的研究旨在比较直立脊平面阻滞(ESP)与脊髓麻醉(SA)在腹股沟疝修补术中的麻醉效果、术后镇痛、活动、出院、并发症和副作用:研究对象包括 52 名 50 岁以上、美国麻醉学会身体状况 I-III 级的患者。ESP组(n = 26)在L1水平的竖脊肌平面使用30毫升混合局麻药,必要时使用10毫升膨胀剂;SA组(n = 26)在L3-L4/L2-L3水平使用3毫升0.5%布比卡因:结果:S组术中视觉模拟量表(VAS)值较低,而ESP组术中第6 h的VAS值较低(P < 0.05)。第 12 小时和第 24 小时的 VAS 值无明显差异(P > 0.05)。ESP组患者达到麻醉后出院标准9的时间以及活动和口服喂食的时间较短,而S组患者术后等待时间较短(P < 0.05)。虽然 S 组的术后镇痛剂需求较高(P < 0.05),但 ESP 组的患者满意度较高(P = 0.05)。术中咪达唑仑的需求量在 S 组较低,术后双氯芬酸的需求量在 ESP 组较低 ( P < 0.05),术后尿潴留和震颤在 S 组较高 ( P = 0.05):结论:在腹股沟疝修补术中,ESP阻滞比SA能提供充分的手术麻醉(非劣效)。结论:在腹股沟疝修补术中,ESP阻滞与SA相比能提供充分的手术麻醉(非劣势),且镇痛需求少、术后疼痛轻、并发症发生率低、术后患者满意度高。
Comparison of spinal anaesthesia and erector spinae plane block in unilateral inguinal hernia: Randomised clinical trial.
Introduction: The objective of our study was to compare erector spinae plane block (ESP) with spinal anaesthesia (SA) for inguinal hernia repair with respect to anaesthetic efficacy, post-operative analgesia, mobilisation, discharge, complication and side effects.
Patients and methods: The study included 52 patients over 50 years of age, with the American Society of Anaesthesia physical status Class I-III. Group ESP ( n = 26) was applied 30 ml of mixed local anaesthetic mixture applied at the L1 level to the plane of the erector spinae and 10 ml of tumescent when necessary, while Group SA ( n = 26) was applied 3 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine at the L3-L4/L2-L3 level.
Results: Intraoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) value was lower in Group S, whereas the 6 th -h VAS value was lower in Group ESP ( P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the VAS values at hour 12 and 24 ( P > 0.05). Reaching post-anaesthesia discharge criteria 9 and time to mobilisation and oral feeding was shorter in Group ESP, whereas post-procedure waiting time was shorter in Group S ( P < 0.05). While the need for post-operative analgesics was higher in Group S ( P < 0.05), there was a high level of patient satisfaction in Group ESP ( P = 0.05). Intraoperative midazolam requirement was lower in Group S, post-operative diclofenac requirement was lower in Group ESP ( P < 0.05), post-operative urinary retention and tremor were higher in Group S ( P = 0.05).
Conclusion: ESP block provides adequate surgical anaesthesia compared to SA (non-inferiority) for inguinal hernia repair. It is associated with less analgesic requirement, low post-operative pain, less complication rate and high patient satisfaction in the post-operative period.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery (JMAS), the official publication of Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo Surgeons, launched in early 2005. The JMAS, a quarterly publication, is the first English-language journal from India, as also from this part of the world, dedicated to Minimal Access Surgery. The JMAS boasts an outstanding editorial board comprising of Indian and international experts in the field.