比较三种不同类型的锁骨上阻滞注射方法及其对膈肌功能的影响,以膈肌增厚分数评估:一项前瞻性,随机,双盲研究。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Çağrı Yeşilnacar, Zeki T Tekgül, Hüseyin Özkarakaş, Aysun A Kar
{"title":"比较三种不同类型的锁骨上阻滞注射方法及其对膈肌功能的影响,以膈肌增厚分数评估:一项前瞻性,随机,双盲研究。","authors":"Çağrı Yeşilnacar, Zeki T Tekgül, Hüseyin Özkarakaş, Aysun A Kar","doi":"10.23736/S0375-9393.25.19148-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of the study was to compare the effects of three different types of injection methods used in supraclavicular blocks on levels of phrenic nerve blocking with diaphragm thickening fraction (DTF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was designed as prospective, randomized, controlled, and double-blind. Patients presenting for elective upper extremity surgery were divided into three groups according to the injection method for the supraclavicular block (The multi-injected GM group (N.=28), the GD group given two equal injections intracluster and the corner pocket (N.=29), and the GC group (N.=28), who were given local anesthetic only to the corner pocket). The primary outcome was to demonstrate the DTF differences. The secondary outcomes included sensory block level, block success, and additional procedures during the operation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In terms of the DTF difference before and after the block (ΔDTF), a statistically significant difference was observed (P=0.001). Median ΔDTF was found to be 62% (IQR: 47%) in the GM group, 38% (IQR: 61%) in the GD group, and 20% (IQR: 47%) in the GC group. A successful block was detected in 100% of the GM group, 97% in the GD group, and 82% in the GC group, with a statistically significant difference (P=0.022).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The method with two equal injections intracluster and the corner pocket shows a more acceptable diaphragm involvement rate compared to the multi-injection method and a high block success rate close to the multi-injection method.</p>","PeriodicalId":18522,"journal":{"name":"Minerva anestesiologica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of three different types of injection methods for supraclavicular block and their effects on diaphragm muscle function evaluated with diaphragm thickening fraction: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study.\",\"authors\":\"Çağrı Yeşilnacar, Zeki T Tekgül, Hüseyin Özkarakaş, Aysun A Kar\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S0375-9393.25.19148-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of the study was to compare the effects of three different types of injection methods used in supraclavicular blocks on levels of phrenic nerve blocking with diaphragm thickening fraction (DTF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was designed as prospective, randomized, controlled, and double-blind. Patients presenting for elective upper extremity surgery were divided into three groups according to the injection method for the supraclavicular block (The multi-injected GM group (N.=28), the GD group given two equal injections intracluster and the corner pocket (N.=29), and the GC group (N.=28), who were given local anesthetic only to the corner pocket). The primary outcome was to demonstrate the DTF differences. The secondary outcomes included sensory block level, block success, and additional procedures during the operation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In terms of the DTF difference before and after the block (ΔDTF), a statistically significant difference was observed (P=0.001). Median ΔDTF was found to be 62% (IQR: 47%) in the GM group, 38% (IQR: 61%) in the GD group, and 20% (IQR: 47%) in the GC group. A successful block was detected in 100% of the GM group, 97% in the GD group, and 82% in the GC group, with a statistically significant difference (P=0.022).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The method with two equal injections intracluster and the corner pocket shows a more acceptable diaphragm involvement rate compared to the multi-injection method and a high block success rate close to the multi-injection method.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva anestesiologica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva anestesiologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.25.19148-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva anestesiologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.25.19148-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究的目的是比较锁骨上阻滞中使用的三种不同类型的注射方法对膈肌增厚分数(DTF)膈神经阻滞水平的影响。方法:采用前瞻性、随机、对照、双盲设计。择期上肢手术患者按锁骨上阻滞注射方式分为三组(GM组(28例)、GD组(29例)和GC组(28例),分别在锁骨上阻滞内和角袋内等量注射2次)。主要结果是证明DTF的差异。次要结果包括感觉阻滞水平、阻滞成功和手术期间的附加程序。结果:阻滞前后DTF差异(ΔDTF),差异有统计学意义(P=0.001)。中位ΔDTF在GM组为62% (IQR: 47%), GD组为38% (IQR: 61%), GC组为20% (IQR: 47%)。GM组100%、GD组97%、GC组82%成功阻断,差异有统计学意义(P=0.022)。结论:簇内和角袋内两次等量注射的方法比多次注射法更能接受膈膜受累率,阻滞成功率接近多次注射法。
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 three different types of injection methods for supraclavicular block and their effects on diaphragm muscle function evaluated with diaphragm thickening fraction: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study.

Background: The aim of the study was to compare the effects of three different types of injection methods used in supraclavicular blocks on levels of phrenic nerve blocking with diaphragm thickening fraction (DTF).

Methods: The study was designed as prospective, randomized, controlled, and double-blind. Patients presenting for elective upper extremity surgery were divided into three groups according to the injection method for the supraclavicular block (The multi-injected GM group (N.=28), the GD group given two equal injections intracluster and the corner pocket (N.=29), and the GC group (N.=28), who were given local anesthetic only to the corner pocket). The primary outcome was to demonstrate the DTF differences. The secondary outcomes included sensory block level, block success, and additional procedures during the operation.

Results: In terms of the DTF difference before and after the block (ΔDTF), a statistically significant difference was observed (P=0.001). Median ΔDTF was found to be 62% (IQR: 47%) in the GM group, 38% (IQR: 61%) in the GD group, and 20% (IQR: 47%) in the GC group. A successful block was detected in 100% of the GM group, 97% in the GD group, and 82% in the GC group, with a statistically significant difference (P=0.022).

Conclusions: The method with two equal injections intracluster and the corner pocket shows a more acceptable diaphragm involvement rate compared to the multi-injection method and a high block success rate close to the multi-injection method.

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
Minerva anestesiologica
Minerva anestesiologica 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
367
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Minerva Anestesiologica is the journal of the Italian National Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care. Minerva Anestesiologica publishes scientific papers on Anesthesiology, Intensive care, Analgesia, Perioperative Medicine and related fields. Manuscripts are expected to comply with the instructions to authors which conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Editors by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
×
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