微波消融治疗胸膜下I期非小细胞肺癌:一项比较三种麻醉模式的前瞻性单中心研究。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
International Journal of Hyperthermia Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-06 DOI:10.1080/02656736.2025.2498649
Yu-Feng Wang, ZhiXin Bie, YuanMing Li, Sheng Xu, RunQi Guo, Xiao-Guang Li
{"title":"微波消融治疗胸膜下I期非小细胞肺癌:一项比较三种麻醉模式的前瞻性单中心研究。","authors":"Yu-Feng Wang, ZhiXin Bie, YuanMing Li, Sheng Xu, RunQi Guo, Xiao-Guang Li","doi":"10.1080/02656736.2025.2498649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of three anesthetic techniques during microwave ablation (MWA) for subpleural stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This prospective, single-center clinical trial enrolled patients with subpleural stage I NSCLC between January 2024 and December 2024. Patients were assigned to one of three anesthesia groups: intercostal nerve block (INB), pleural infiltration anesthesia (PIA), or local anesthesia (LA). The primary endpoints were perioperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores and the incidence of adverse events within 30 days of MWA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty patients (mean age 73.88 ± 6.44 years; 28 men) were included in the analysis. The PIA group had intraoperative VAS scores comparable to the INB group and significantly lower than the LA group (2.70 ± 1.34 vs. 2.85 ± 1.73 vs. 6.26 ± 1.41, respectively). Postoperatively, VAS scores at 2 h were significantly lower in the PIA and INB groups compared to the LA group; however, no statistically significant difference was observed between the PIA and INB groups (0.80 ± 1.24 vs. 1.35 ± 1.63 vs. 2.25 ± 1.02). There was no significant difference in VAS scores at 24 h post-ablation (0.80 ± 1.24 vs. 1.40 ± 1.57 vs. 1.50 ± 1.64). The technical success and efficacy rates were 100%. No procedure-related deaths occurred within 30 days of MWA, and most adverse events were minor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>INB and PIA significantly reduced perioperative pain compared to LA. No significant difference in adverse events incidence was observed among the three groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":14137,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Hyperthermia","volume":"42 1","pages":"2498649"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Microwave ablation for subpleural stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective, single-center study comparing three anesthesia models.\",\"authors\":\"Yu-Feng Wang, ZhiXin Bie, YuanMing Li, Sheng Xu, RunQi Guo, Xiao-Guang Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02656736.2025.2498649\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of three anesthetic techniques during microwave ablation (MWA) for subpleural stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This prospective, single-center clinical trial enrolled patients with subpleural stage I NSCLC between January 2024 and December 2024. Patients were assigned to one of three anesthesia groups: intercostal nerve block (INB), pleural infiltration anesthesia (PIA), or local anesthesia (LA). The primary endpoints were perioperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores and the incidence of adverse events within 30 days of MWA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty patients (mean age 73.88 ± 6.44 years; 28 men) were included in the analysis. The PIA group had intraoperative VAS scores comparable to the INB group and significantly lower than the LA group (2.70 ± 1.34 vs. 2.85 ± 1.73 vs. 6.26 ± 1.41, respectively). Postoperatively, VAS scores at 2 h were significantly lower in the PIA and INB groups compared to the LA group; however, no statistically significant difference was observed between the PIA and INB groups (0.80 ± 1.24 vs. 1.35 ± 1.63 vs. 2.25 ± 1.02). There was no significant difference in VAS scores at 24 h post-ablation (0.80 ± 1.24 vs. 1.40 ± 1.57 vs. 1.50 ± 1.64). The technical success and efficacy rates were 100%. No procedure-related deaths occurred within 30 days of MWA, and most adverse events were minor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>INB and PIA significantly reduced perioperative pain compared to LA. No significant difference in adverse events incidence was observed among the three groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Hyperthermia\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"2498649\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Hyperthermia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2025.2498649\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Hyperthermia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2025.2498649","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较三种麻醉方法在胸膜下I期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)微波消融(MWA)术中的镇痛效果和安全性。材料和方法:这项前瞻性单中心临床试验招募了2024年1月至2024年12月期间的胸膜下I期NSCLC患者。患者被分配到三个麻醉组中的一个:肋间神经阻滞(INB),胸膜浸润麻醉(PIA)或局部麻醉(LA)。主要终点是围手术期视觉模拟评分(VAS)评分和MWA术后30天内不良事件的发生率。结果:60例患者(平均年龄73.88±6.44岁;28名男性)被纳入分析。PIA组术中VAS评分与INB组相当,明显低于LA组(分别为2.70±1.34比2.85±1.73比6.26±1.41)。术后2 h, PIA组和INB组VAS评分明显低于LA组;而PIA组与INB组间差异无统计学意义(0.80±1.24 vs. 1.35±1.63 vs. 2.25±1.02)。消融后24 h VAS评分差异无统计学意义(0.80±1.24 vs. 1.40±1.57 vs. 1.50±1.64)。技术成功率和有效率均为100%。MWA术后30天内未发生手术相关死亡,大多数不良事件较轻。结论:与LA相比,INB和PIA可显著减轻围手术期疼痛。三组不良事件发生率无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Microwave ablation for subpleural stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective, single-center study comparing three anesthesia models.

Objectives: To compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of three anesthetic techniques during microwave ablation (MWA) for subpleural stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Materials and methods: This prospective, single-center clinical trial enrolled patients with subpleural stage I NSCLC between January 2024 and December 2024. Patients were assigned to one of three anesthesia groups: intercostal nerve block (INB), pleural infiltration anesthesia (PIA), or local anesthesia (LA). The primary endpoints were perioperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores and the incidence of adverse events within 30 days of MWA.

Results: Sixty patients (mean age 73.88 ± 6.44 years; 28 men) were included in the analysis. The PIA group had intraoperative VAS scores comparable to the INB group and significantly lower than the LA group (2.70 ± 1.34 vs. 2.85 ± 1.73 vs. 6.26 ± 1.41, respectively). Postoperatively, VAS scores at 2 h were significantly lower in the PIA and INB groups compared to the LA group; however, no statistically significant difference was observed between the PIA and INB groups (0.80 ± 1.24 vs. 1.35 ± 1.63 vs. 2.25 ± 1.02). There was no significant difference in VAS scores at 24 h post-ablation (0.80 ± 1.24 vs. 1.40 ± 1.57 vs. 1.50 ± 1.64). The technical success and efficacy rates were 100%. No procedure-related deaths occurred within 30 days of MWA, and most adverse events were minor.

Conclusion: INB and PIA significantly reduced perioperative pain compared to LA. No significant difference in adverse events incidence was observed among the three groups.

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
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
12.90%
发文量
153
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Hyperthermia
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信