{"title":"局部麻醉用于皮肤烧伤的酶清创:对 27 个病例的前瞻性分析。","authors":"D Berwick, L Young, A Lee, D Lancaster, B Dheansa","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Enzymatic debridement (ED) is increasingly used for cutaneous burns. Compared with surgical debridement, ED has better preservation of viable dermis, less blood loss and autografting, however ED is painful. Current recommendations suggest local anaesthesia (LA) is useful for minor burns, but the evidence base is minimal. In our centre, we routinely use LA with good analgesic effect. This study was a single-centre, prospective analysis conducted at the Queen Victoria Hospital (UK). Patients had at least superficial partial thickness burns and received subcutaneous LA prior to ED during a 1-year period (October 2019-September 2020). Pain was assessed using a numeric scale of 1-10, recorded before, during and after the procedure. In total, 27 patients were included (n=17 males) with a median age of 47 (18-88 years). The mean total burn surface area was 1.5% (0.3-5.0). Treated sites included head and neck (1), trunk (5), upper limb (9) and lower limb (16). The most used LAwas bupivacaine 0.25% (n=25), followed by lidocaine 1% (n=2). Some required additional oral analgesia (n=8) or a regional blockade (n=2). Average pain score during debridement was 1.9 We have found LA effective, with favourable pain scores in comparison to previous studies with oral analgesia or regional blockade. LA is quick and easy to perform, as opposed to nerve blocks, which require trained personnel with ultrasound guidance. LA is a useful analgesic for patients with minor cutaneous burns undergoing ED. In some cases, it is sufficient without additional oral analgesia or regional blockade.</p>","PeriodicalId":93873,"journal":{"name":"Annals of burns and fire disasters","volume":"36 1","pages":"74-78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11044729/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Local Anaesthesia for Enzymatic Debridement of Cutaneous Burns: A Prospective Analysis of 27 Cases.\",\"authors\":\"D Berwick, L Young, A Lee, D Lancaster, B Dheansa\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Enzymatic debridement (ED) is increasingly used for cutaneous burns. Compared with surgical debridement, ED has better preservation of viable dermis, less blood loss and autografting, however ED is painful. Current recommendations suggest local anaesthesia (LA) is useful for minor burns, but the evidence base is minimal. In our centre, we routinely use LA with good analgesic effect. This study was a single-centre, prospective analysis conducted at the Queen Victoria Hospital (UK). Patients had at least superficial partial thickness burns and received subcutaneous LA prior to ED during a 1-year period (October 2019-September 2020). Pain was assessed using a numeric scale of 1-10, recorded before, during and after the procedure. In total, 27 patients were included (n=17 males) with a median age of 47 (18-88 years). The mean total burn surface area was 1.5% (0.3-5.0). Treated sites included head and neck (1), trunk (5), upper limb (9) and lower limb (16). The most used LAwas bupivacaine 0.25% (n=25), followed by lidocaine 1% (n=2). Some required additional oral analgesia (n=8) or a regional blockade (n=2). Average pain score during debridement was 1.9 We have found LA effective, with favourable pain scores in comparison to previous studies with oral analgesia or regional blockade. LA is quick and easy to perform, as opposed to nerve blocks, which require trained personnel with ultrasound guidance. LA is a useful analgesic for patients with minor cutaneous burns undergoing ED. In some cases, it is sufficient without additional oral analgesia or regional blockade.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93873,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of burns and fire disasters\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"74-78\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11044729/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of burns and fire disasters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of burns and fire disasters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
酶法清创(ED)越来越多地用于皮肤烧伤。与手术清创相比,酶解清创能更好地保留有活力的真皮层,减少失血和自体移植,但酶解清创会带来疼痛。目前的建议表明,局部麻醉(LA)对轻度烧伤很有用,但证据基础很少。在我们中心,常规使用 LA 有很好的镇痛效果。本研究是在英国维多利亚女王医院进行的一项单中心前瞻性分析。患者至少有浅表部分厚度烧伤,并在 ED 前接受了皮下 LA,为期 1 年(2019 年 10 月至 2020 年 9 月)。疼痛采用 1-10 级数字量表进行评估,并记录手术前、手术中和手术后的疼痛情况。共纳入 27 名患者(17 名男性),中位年龄为 47 岁(18-88 岁)。平均烧伤总面积为 1.5%(0.3-5.0)。治疗部位包括头颈部(1 例)、躯干(5 例)、上肢(9 例)和下肢(16 例)。使用最多的LA是0.25%布比卡因(25人),其次是1%利多卡因(2人)。有些患者需要额外口服镇痛药(8 例)或区域阻滞(2 例)。清创过程中的平均疼痛评分为 1.9 我们发现 LA 很有效,与之前使用口服镇痛药或区域阻滞的研究相比,疼痛评分较高。与需要训练有素的人员在超声引导下进行的神经阻滞相比,LA 简单快捷。对于接受 ED 的轻微皮肤烧伤患者来说,LA 是一种有效的镇痛剂。在某些情况下,无需额外的口服镇痛药或区域阻滞,LA 就已足够。
Local Anaesthesia for Enzymatic Debridement of Cutaneous Burns: A Prospective Analysis of 27 Cases.
Enzymatic debridement (ED) is increasingly used for cutaneous burns. Compared with surgical debridement, ED has better preservation of viable dermis, less blood loss and autografting, however ED is painful. Current recommendations suggest local anaesthesia (LA) is useful for minor burns, but the evidence base is minimal. In our centre, we routinely use LA with good analgesic effect. This study was a single-centre, prospective analysis conducted at the Queen Victoria Hospital (UK). Patients had at least superficial partial thickness burns and received subcutaneous LA prior to ED during a 1-year period (October 2019-September 2020). Pain was assessed using a numeric scale of 1-10, recorded before, during and after the procedure. In total, 27 patients were included (n=17 males) with a median age of 47 (18-88 years). The mean total burn surface area was 1.5% (0.3-5.0). Treated sites included head and neck (1), trunk (5), upper limb (9) and lower limb (16). The most used LAwas bupivacaine 0.25% (n=25), followed by lidocaine 1% (n=2). Some required additional oral analgesia (n=8) or a regional blockade (n=2). Average pain score during debridement was 1.9 We have found LA effective, with favourable pain scores in comparison to previous studies with oral analgesia or regional blockade. LA is quick and easy to perform, as opposed to nerve blocks, which require trained personnel with ultrasound guidance. LA is a useful analgesic for patients with minor cutaneous burns undergoing ED. In some cases, it is sufficient without additional oral analgesia or regional blockade.