单侧脊髓麻醉与超声引导下坐骨股神经阻滞在膝下手术中的安全性和有效性比较:一项随机临床研究

IF 0.2 Q4 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Dhara M Shah, Bipin K Shah, Shruti Desai, Sarala C Baria
{"title":"单侧脊髓麻醉与超声引导下坐骨股神经阻滞在膝下手术中的安全性和有效性比较:一项随机临床研究","authors":"Dhara M Shah, Bipin K Shah, Shruti Desai, Sarala C Baria","doi":"10.7860/jcdr/2023/64681.18653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: With modern advances, Ultrasonography (USG)- guided regional block techniques have improved nerve blockade with lesser drug usage and maximum safety for patient care. The widely appreciated outpatient surgical care has compelled us to apply the fastest and safest anaesthesia technique. For lower limb surgeries, USG-guided Sciatic Femoral Nerve Block (SFNB) is an emerging alternative to Spinal Anaesthesia (SA). Aim: To compare the safety and efficacy of both techniques in terms of haemodynamic stability, quality of block, and postoperative analgesia. Materials and Methods: A randomised double-blind study conducted at GCS Medical College, Hospital, and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India, on 80 patients aged 18 to 70 years of either sex, with American Society of Anaesthesiology (ASA) Grade 1 to 3, undergoing below-knee surgeries was divided into two groups. Group A received USA with 1.5 mL hyperbaric inj. ropivacaine 0.75%, and Group B received USGguided SFB with inj. ropivacaine 0.5% 30 mL (15 mL for sciatic nerve and 15 mL for femoral nerve block). Preparation Time (PT), Surgical Anaesthesia Time (SAT), haemodynamic changes, quality of block, Longevity of Anaesthesia (LoA), time of first rescue analgesia, time of spontaneous urination, readiness to discharge, and patient satisfaction were recorded. The statistical analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago II, USA). The p-value was derived by unpaired t-test and Chi-square test. Results: PT and SAT were higher in Group B (12.10±2.02 mins and 15.74±1.58 mins) than in Group A (6.15±1.12 mins and 8.23±1.45 mins). LoA time and time to first rescue analgesic were higher in Group B (284.10±54.44 mins and 265.71±33.69 mins) than in Group A (138.75±23.30 mins and 132.40±17.41 mins). Time to first spontaneous urination and readiness to discharge were shorter in Group B (136.42±18.40 mins and 158.39±10.78 mins) than in Group A (162.20±26.54 mins and 181.53±18.18 mins). Haemodynamic stability was excellent in both groups with no significant fluctuation. Motor blockade of Bromage 3 grade was achieved in 40 and 38 patients in Group A and B, respectively. The development of VAS score >3 was faster in Group A than in Group B (35 versus 2) at the end of three hours. No adverse events were observed in any patient. Conclusion: USG-guided SFB offers a safe and efficient alternative to Unilateral SA (USA) with satisfactory blockage, stable haemodynamics, and better postoperative analgesia for below-knee surgeries.","PeriodicalId":15483,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Unilateral Spinal Anaesthesia and Ultrasound-guided Sciatic Femoral Nerve Block in below Knee Surgery: A Randomised Clinical Study\",\"authors\":\"Dhara M Shah, Bipin K Shah, Shruti Desai, Sarala C Baria\",\"doi\":\"10.7860/jcdr/2023/64681.18653\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: With modern advances, Ultrasonography (USG)- guided regional block techniques have improved nerve blockade with lesser drug usage and maximum safety for patient care. The widely appreciated outpatient surgical care has compelled us to apply the fastest and safest anaesthesia technique. For lower limb surgeries, USG-guided Sciatic Femoral Nerve Block (SFNB) is an emerging alternative to Spinal Anaesthesia (SA). Aim: To compare the safety and efficacy of both techniques in terms of haemodynamic stability, quality of block, and postoperative analgesia. Materials and Methods: A randomised double-blind study conducted at GCS Medical College, Hospital, and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India, on 80 patients aged 18 to 70 years of either sex, with American Society of Anaesthesiology (ASA) Grade 1 to 3, undergoing below-knee surgeries was divided into two groups. Group A received USA with 1.5 mL hyperbaric inj. ropivacaine 0.75%, and Group B received USGguided SFB with inj. ropivacaine 0.5% 30 mL (15 mL for sciatic nerve and 15 mL for femoral nerve block). Preparation Time (PT), Surgical Anaesthesia Time (SAT), haemodynamic changes, quality of block, Longevity of Anaesthesia (LoA), time of first rescue analgesia, time of spontaneous urination, readiness to discharge, and patient satisfaction were recorded. The statistical analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago II, USA). The p-value was derived by unpaired t-test and Chi-square test. Results: PT and SAT were higher in Group B (12.10±2.02 mins and 15.74±1.58 mins) than in Group A (6.15±1.12 mins and 8.23±1.45 mins). LoA time and time to first rescue analgesic were higher in Group B (284.10±54.44 mins and 265.71±33.69 mins) than in Group A (138.75±23.30 mins and 132.40±17.41 mins). Time to first spontaneous urination and readiness to discharge were shorter in Group B (136.42±18.40 mins and 158.39±10.78 mins) than in Group A (162.20±26.54 mins and 181.53±18.18 mins). Haemodynamic stability was excellent in both groups with no significant fluctuation. Motor blockade of Bromage 3 grade was achieved in 40 and 38 patients in Group A and B, respectively. The development of VAS score >3 was faster in Group A than in Group B (35 versus 2) at the end of three hours. No adverse events were observed in any patient. Conclusion: USG-guided SFB offers a safe and efficient alternative to Unilateral SA (USA) with satisfactory blockage, stable haemodynamics, and better postoperative analgesia for below-knee surgeries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"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 CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2023/64681.18653\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2023/64681.18653","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:随着现代技术的进步,超声(USG)引导的区域阻滞技术改善了神经阻滞,减少了药物的使用,最大限度地提高了患者护理的安全性。广泛认可的门诊手术护理已迫使我们采用最快和最安全的麻醉技术。对于下肢手术,usg引导的坐骨股神经阻滞(SFNB)是一种新兴的替代脊髓麻醉(SA)。目的:比较两种技术在血流动力学稳定性、阻滞质量和术后镇痛方面的安全性和有效性。材料和方法:在印度古吉拉特邦艾哈迈达巴德的GCS医学院、医院和研究中心进行的一项随机双盲研究,将80名年龄在18至70岁之间、美国麻醉学会(ASA) 1至3级、接受膝盖以下手术的患者分为两组。A组给予USA + 1.5 mL高压静脉注射。罗哌卡因0.75%,B组注射USGguided SFB。罗哌卡因0.5% 30 mL(坐骨神经15 mL,股神经阻滞15 mL)。记录术前准备时间(PT)、手术麻醉时间(SAT)、血流动力学变化、阻滞质量、麻醉持续时间(LoA)、首次抢救镇痛时间、自主排尿时间、出院准备情况和患者满意度。统计分析使用statistical Package for Social Sciences version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago II, USA)进行。p值采用非配对t检验和卡方检验。结果:B组PT和SAT分别为12.10±2.02 min和15.74±1.58 min,高于A组(6.15±1.12 min和8.23±1.45 min)。B组患者首次抢救镇痛时间(284.10±54.44 min)和首次抢救镇痛时间(265.71±33.69 min)均高于A组(138.75±23.30 min和132.40±17.41 min)。B组首次自然排尿时间(136.42±18.40 min)和准备排尿时间(158.39±10.78 min)短于A组(162.20±26.54 min)和181.53±18.18 min。两组患者血流动力学稳定性良好,无明显波动。A组和B组分别有40例和38例患者达到Bromage 3级的运动阻断。3 h时,A组VAS评分>3的发展速度明显快于B组(35比2)。所有患者均未观察到不良事件。结论:usg引导下的SFB为单侧SA (USA)手术提供了一种安全有效的替代方法,具有满意的阻塞,稳定的血流动力学和更好的术后镇痛效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Unilateral Spinal Anaesthesia and Ultrasound-guided Sciatic Femoral Nerve Block in below Knee Surgery: A Randomised Clinical Study
Introduction: With modern advances, Ultrasonography (USG)- guided regional block techniques have improved nerve blockade with lesser drug usage and maximum safety for patient care. The widely appreciated outpatient surgical care has compelled us to apply the fastest and safest anaesthesia technique. For lower limb surgeries, USG-guided Sciatic Femoral Nerve Block (SFNB) is an emerging alternative to Spinal Anaesthesia (SA). Aim: To compare the safety and efficacy of both techniques in terms of haemodynamic stability, quality of block, and postoperative analgesia. Materials and Methods: A randomised double-blind study conducted at GCS Medical College, Hospital, and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India, on 80 patients aged 18 to 70 years of either sex, with American Society of Anaesthesiology (ASA) Grade 1 to 3, undergoing below-knee surgeries was divided into two groups. Group A received USA with 1.5 mL hyperbaric inj. ropivacaine 0.75%, and Group B received USGguided SFB with inj. ropivacaine 0.5% 30 mL (15 mL for sciatic nerve and 15 mL for femoral nerve block). Preparation Time (PT), Surgical Anaesthesia Time (SAT), haemodynamic changes, quality of block, Longevity of Anaesthesia (LoA), time of first rescue analgesia, time of spontaneous urination, readiness to discharge, and patient satisfaction were recorded. The statistical analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago II, USA). The p-value was derived by unpaired t-test and Chi-square test. Results: PT and SAT were higher in Group B (12.10±2.02 mins and 15.74±1.58 mins) than in Group A (6.15±1.12 mins and 8.23±1.45 mins). LoA time and time to first rescue analgesic were higher in Group B (284.10±54.44 mins and 265.71±33.69 mins) than in Group A (138.75±23.30 mins and 132.40±17.41 mins). Time to first spontaneous urination and readiness to discharge were shorter in Group B (136.42±18.40 mins and 158.39±10.78 mins) than in Group A (162.20±26.54 mins and 181.53±18.18 mins). Haemodynamic stability was excellent in both groups with no significant fluctuation. Motor blockade of Bromage 3 grade was achieved in 40 and 38 patients in Group A and B, respectively. The development of VAS score >3 was faster in Group A than in Group B (35 versus 2) at the end of three hours. No adverse events were observed in any patient. Conclusion: USG-guided SFB offers a safe and efficient alternative to Unilateral SA (USA) with satisfactory blockage, stable haemodynamics, and better postoperative analgesia for below-knee surgeries.
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
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
761
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Specialties Covered: Anaesthesia, Anatomy, Animal Research, Biochemistry, Biotechnology, Cardiology, Community, Dermatology, Dentistry, Education, Emergency Medicine, Endocrinology, Ethics, Ear Nose and Throat, Forensic, Gastroenterology, Genetics, Haematology, Health Management and Policy, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Intensive Care, Internal Medicine, Microbiology, Health Management and Policy, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Intensive Care, Internal Medicine, Microbiology, Nephrology / Renal, Neurology and Neuro-Surgery, Nutrition, Nursing/Midwifery, Oncology, Orthopaedics, Ophthalmology, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Paediatrics and Neonatology Pharmacology, Physiology, Pathology, Plastic Surgery, Psychiatry/Mental Health, Rehabilitation / Physiotherapy, Radiology, Statistics, Surgery, Speech and Hearing (Audiology)
×
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