锁骨手术麻醉中使用椎间孔阻滞与不使用颈浅丛阻滞的疗效比较

Q2 Medicine
F. Mosaffa, M. Ghasemi, Afsaneh Habibi, R. Minaei, Narges Bazgir, Elham Memary, Alireza Shakeri
{"title":"锁骨手术麻醉中使用椎间孔阻滞与不使用颈浅丛阻滞的疗效比较","authors":"F. Mosaffa, M. Ghasemi, Afsaneh Habibi, R. Minaei, Narges Bazgir, Elham Memary, Alireza Shakeri","doi":"10.5812/aapm-142051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Clavicle fractures account for over one-third of shoulder injuries and up to 3.3% of all fractures in adults. While the majority of these fractures can be managed non-surgically, there are instances where surgical intervention is performed. Regional anesthesia (RA) can be a preferred alternative to general anesthesia (GA) to avoid complications and high costs in this surgery. Moreover, the identification of the most optimal approach for RA remains challenging. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of interscalene block (ISB) with and without superficial cervical plexus block (SCPB) as an anesthetic technique for clavicular fracture operation. Methods: This double-blinded, non-inferiority clinical trial was conducted on 120 patients randomly divided into 2 groups: one receiving ISB and the other receiving ISB with SCPB. The primary outcome was defined as the conversion to GA. Various factors were recorded, including surgery duration, nerve block initiation, analgesics required in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and sedation during surgery. Pain was evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) in PACU. SPSS version 26 was used for statistical analysis, performing descriptive analysis, Student’s T-tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests to compare non-parametric variables between the 2 groups. Statistically significant results had a P value of less than 0.05. Results: A total of 120 patients were randomly divided into 2 equal groups, each consisting of 50 males and 10 females. The mean age of intervention and case groups were 37.23 ± 13.30 and 38.43 ± 11.95 years, respectively. After performing statistical tests (Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U test), there was no significant difference in the initiation time of nerve block, surgery initiation time, surgery duration, the amount of required sedation, VAS scores, and meperidine consumption (P > 0.05). None of the patients in both groups required conversion to GA. Conclusions: The primary goal was achieved in all included cases, and no patients required conversion to GA. The efficacy of ISB is the same whether or not it is combined with a SCPB. Interscalene block is an alternative RA approach for clavicle fractures. Thus, ISB alone is as efficient as when used in combination with SCPB.","PeriodicalId":7841,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy Comparison Between Interscalene Block with and Without Superficial Cervical Plexus Block for Anesthesia in Clavicle Surgery\",\"authors\":\"F. Mosaffa, M. Ghasemi, Afsaneh Habibi, R. Minaei, Narges Bazgir, Elham Memary, Alireza Shakeri\",\"doi\":\"10.5812/aapm-142051\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Clavicle fractures account for over one-third of shoulder injuries and up to 3.3% of all fractures in adults. While the majority of these fractures can be managed non-surgically, there are instances where surgical intervention is performed. Regional anesthesia (RA) can be a preferred alternative to general anesthesia (GA) to avoid complications and high costs in this surgery. Moreover, the identification of the most optimal approach for RA remains challenging. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of interscalene block (ISB) with and without superficial cervical plexus block (SCPB) as an anesthetic technique for clavicular fracture operation. Methods: This double-blinded, non-inferiority clinical trial was conducted on 120 patients randomly divided into 2 groups: one receiving ISB and the other receiving ISB with SCPB. The primary outcome was defined as the conversion to GA. Various factors were recorded, including surgery duration, nerve block initiation, analgesics required in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and sedation during surgery. Pain was evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) in PACU. SPSS version 26 was used for statistical analysis, performing descriptive analysis, Student’s T-tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests to compare non-parametric variables between the 2 groups. Statistically significant results had a P value of less than 0.05. Results: A total of 120 patients were randomly divided into 2 equal groups, each consisting of 50 males and 10 females. The mean age of intervention and case groups were 37.23 ± 13.30 and 38.43 ± 11.95 years, respectively. After performing statistical tests (Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U test), there was no significant difference in the initiation time of nerve block, surgery initiation time, surgery duration, the amount of required sedation, VAS scores, and meperidine consumption (P > 0.05). None of the patients in both groups required conversion to GA. Conclusions: The primary goal was achieved in all included cases, and no patients required conversion to GA. The efficacy of ISB is the same whether or not it is combined with a SCPB. Interscalene block is an alternative RA approach for clavicle fractures. Thus, ISB alone is as efficient as when used in combination with SCPB.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5812/aapm-142051\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/aapm-142051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:锁骨骨折占肩部损伤的三分之一以上,占成人骨折总数的 3.3%。虽然大多数骨折可以通过非手术治疗,但也有需要进行手术干预的情况。区域麻醉(RA)可作为全身麻醉(GA)的首选,以避免手术并发症和高昂的费用。此外,确定区域麻醉的最佳方法仍具有挑战性。研究目的本研究旨在比较锁骨骨折手术中使用椎间孔阻滞(ISB)和不使用颈浅神经丛阻滞(SCPB)作为麻醉技术的效果。方法:这项双盲、非劣效临床试验将 120 名患者随机分为两组:一组接受 ISB,另一组接受带 SCPB 的 ISB。主要结果定义为转为 GA。试验记录了各种因素,包括手术持续时间、神经阻滞起始时间、麻醉后护理病房(PACU)所需的镇痛剂以及手术过程中的镇静剂。在 PACU 使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)对疼痛进行评估。统计分析采用 SPSS 26 版本,通过描述性分析、学生 T 检验和 Mann-Whitney U 检验来比较两组之间的非参数变量。具有统计学意义的结果的 P 值小于 0.05。结果共 120 名患者被随机分为 2 组,每组 50 名男性和 10 名女性。干预组和病例组的平均年龄分别为(37.23±13.30)岁和(38.43±11.95)岁。经统计学检验(学生 t 检验和 Mann-Whitney U 检验),两组患者的神经阻滞起始时间、手术起始时间、手术持续时间、所需镇静剂量、VAS 评分和甲哌啶用量均无显著差异(P > 0.05)。两组患者均无需改用 GA。结论:所有纳入的病例都达到了主要目标,没有患者需要改用 GA。无论是否结合 SCPB,ISB 的疗效都是一样的。锁骨间阻滞是治疗锁骨骨折的另一种 RA 方法。因此,单独使用 ISB 与联合使用 SCPB 的疗效相同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy Comparison Between Interscalene Block with and Without Superficial Cervical Plexus Block for Anesthesia in Clavicle Surgery
Background: Clavicle fractures account for over one-third of shoulder injuries and up to 3.3% of all fractures in adults. While the majority of these fractures can be managed non-surgically, there are instances where surgical intervention is performed. Regional anesthesia (RA) can be a preferred alternative to general anesthesia (GA) to avoid complications and high costs in this surgery. Moreover, the identification of the most optimal approach for RA remains challenging. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of interscalene block (ISB) with and without superficial cervical plexus block (SCPB) as an anesthetic technique for clavicular fracture operation. Methods: This double-blinded, non-inferiority clinical trial was conducted on 120 patients randomly divided into 2 groups: one receiving ISB and the other receiving ISB with SCPB. The primary outcome was defined as the conversion to GA. Various factors were recorded, including surgery duration, nerve block initiation, analgesics required in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and sedation during surgery. Pain was evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) in PACU. SPSS version 26 was used for statistical analysis, performing descriptive analysis, Student’s T-tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests to compare non-parametric variables between the 2 groups. Statistically significant results had a P value of less than 0.05. Results: A total of 120 patients were randomly divided into 2 equal groups, each consisting of 50 males and 10 females. The mean age of intervention and case groups were 37.23 ± 13.30 and 38.43 ± 11.95 years, respectively. After performing statistical tests (Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U test), there was no significant difference in the initiation time of nerve block, surgery initiation time, surgery duration, the amount of required sedation, VAS scores, and meperidine consumption (P > 0.05). None of the patients in both groups required conversion to GA. Conclusions: The primary goal was achieved in all included cases, and no patients required conversion to GA. The efficacy of ISB is the same whether or not it is combined with a SCPB. Interscalene block is an alternative RA approach for clavicle fractures. Thus, ISB alone is as efficient as when used in combination with SCPB.
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
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
×
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