改良根治性乳房切除术中超声引导双点与单点锯齿状肌前平面阻滞:随机对照试验。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Jianghui Xu, Dandan Ling, Qianyun Xu, Pengfei Sun, Shiyou Wei, Lingling Gao, Feifei Lou, Jun Zhang
{"title":"改良根治性乳房切除术中超声引导双点与单点锯齿状肌前平面阻滞:随机对照试验。","authors":"Jianghui Xu, Dandan Ling, Qianyun Xu, Pengfei Sun, Shiyou Wei, Lingling Gao, Feifei Lou, Jun Zhang","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The double-point serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) covers more area, including the axilla, than the single-point approach, potentially offering better pain relief after modified radical mastectomy (MRM). The objective of this study were to evaluate the clinical outcomes of these 2 procedures for patients treated with MRMs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty women were randomly assigned to double- or single-point groups. Double-point received SAPB at the third and fifth ribs, single-point at the fifth rib. The primary outcome includes pain numeric rating scale (NRS) at rest and movement 24 hours postsurgery. The secondary outcomes are axilla comfort NRS, recovery quality, and adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 24 hours postsurgery, the double-point group compared with the single-point group showed movement pain NRS of 3 (2 to 3) versus 3 (3 to 4) ( P =0.011) and rest pain NRS of 1 (1 to 1) versus 2 (1 to 3) ( P =0.037). The difference between them did not exceed the minimum clindically important difference (MCID). The axillary comfort NRS in the double-point group was lower than the single-point group at 6 and 12 hours postsurgery, at 1 (1 to 2) versus 2 (2 to 4) ( P =0.001) and 1 (1 to 2) versus 2 (2 to 4) ( P =0.01), respectively, but there were no statistically significant differences at 24 and 48 hours postsurgery. At 48 hours postsurgery, pain scores and opioid use were similar in both groups. Recovery scores, rescue analgesia timing, adverse events, and hospital stay length were similar in both groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Double-point SAPB offers wider anesthetic spread but shows no significant clinical advantage in pain or axillary comfort over single-point SAPB after MRM.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ultrasound-Guided Double-Point Versus Single-Point Serratus Anterior Plane Block for Modified Radical Mastectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Jianghui Xu, Dandan Ling, Qianyun Xu, Pengfei Sun, Shiyou Wei, Lingling Gao, Feifei Lou, Jun Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001256\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The double-point serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) covers more area, including the axilla, than the single-point approach, potentially offering better pain relief after modified radical mastectomy (MRM). The objective of this study were to evaluate the clinical outcomes of these 2 procedures for patients treated with MRMs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty women were randomly assigned to double- or single-point groups. Double-point received SAPB at the third and fifth ribs, single-point at the fifth rib. The primary outcome includes pain numeric rating scale (NRS) at rest and movement 24 hours postsurgery. The secondary outcomes are axilla comfort NRS, recovery quality, and adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 24 hours postsurgery, the double-point group compared with the single-point group showed movement pain NRS of 3 (2 to 3) versus 3 (3 to 4) ( P =0.011) and rest pain NRS of 1 (1 to 1) versus 2 (1 to 3) ( P =0.037). The difference between them did not exceed the minimum clindically important difference (MCID). The axillary comfort NRS in the double-point group was lower than the single-point group at 6 and 12 hours postsurgery, at 1 (1 to 2) versus 2 (2 to 4) ( P =0.001) and 1 (1 to 2) versus 2 (2 to 4) ( P =0.01), respectively, but there were no statistically significant differences at 24 and 48 hours postsurgery. At 48 hours postsurgery, pain scores and opioid use were similar in both groups. Recovery scores, rescue analgesia timing, adverse events, and hospital stay length were similar in both groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Double-point SAPB offers wider anesthetic spread but shows no significant clinical advantage in pain or axillary comfort over single-point SAPB after MRM.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001256\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001256","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:双点锯齿状肌前平面阻滞(SAPB)比单点方法覆盖包括腋窝在内的更多区域,可能在改良根治性乳房切除术(MRM)后提供更好的镇痛效果:60名妇女被随机分配到双点或单点组。双点组在第三和第五根肋骨处接受 SAPB,单点组在第五根肋骨处接受 SAPB。主要结果:术后 24 小时休息和活动时的疼痛数字评分量表(NRS)。次要结果:腋窝舒适度NRS、恢复质量和不良事件:术后 24 小时,双点组与单点组相比,运动疼痛 NRS 为 3 (2-3) vs. 3 (3-4) (P = 0.011),休息疼痛 NRS 为 1 (1-1) vs. 2 (1-3) (P = 0.037)。两者之间的差异未超过 MCID。术后 6 小时和 12 小时,双点组的腋窝舒适度 NRS 低于单点组,分别为 1 (1-2) vs. 2 (2-4) (P=0.001) 和 1 (1-2) vs. 2 (2-4) (P=0.01),但术后 24 小时和 48 小时没有差异。术后48小时时,两组的疼痛评分和阿片类药物使用情况相似。两组的恢复评分、镇痛抢救时间、不良事件和住院时间相似:讨论:双点 SAPB 可提供更广泛的麻醉扩散,但与 MRM 术后单点 SAPB 相比,双点 SAPB 在疼痛或腋窝舒适度方面没有明显的临床优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ultrasound-Guided Double-Point Versus Single-Point Serratus Anterior Plane Block for Modified Radical Mastectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objectives: The double-point serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) covers more area, including the axilla, than the single-point approach, potentially offering better pain relief after modified radical mastectomy (MRM). The objective of this study were to evaluate the clinical outcomes of these 2 procedures for patients treated with MRMs.

Methods: Sixty women were randomly assigned to double- or single-point groups. Double-point received SAPB at the third and fifth ribs, single-point at the fifth rib. The primary outcome includes pain numeric rating scale (NRS) at rest and movement 24 hours postsurgery. The secondary outcomes are axilla comfort NRS, recovery quality, and adverse events.

Results: At 24 hours postsurgery, the double-point group compared with the single-point group showed movement pain NRS of 3 (2 to 3) versus 3 (3 to 4) ( P =0.011) and rest pain NRS of 1 (1 to 1) versus 2 (1 to 3) ( P =0.037). The difference between them did not exceed the minimum clindically important difference (MCID). The axillary comfort NRS in the double-point group was lower than the single-point group at 6 and 12 hours postsurgery, at 1 (1 to 2) versus 2 (2 to 4) ( P =0.001) and 1 (1 to 2) versus 2 (2 to 4) ( P =0.01), respectively, but there were no statistically significant differences at 24 and 48 hours postsurgery. At 48 hours postsurgery, pain scores and opioid use were similar in both groups. Recovery scores, rescue analgesia timing, adverse events, and hospital stay length were similar in both groups.

Discussion: Double-point SAPB offers wider anesthetic spread but shows no significant clinical advantage in pain or axillary comfort over single-point SAPB after MRM.

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
Clinical Journal of Pain
Clinical Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
118
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.
×
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