氯普鲁卡因阻滞治疗双侧桡骨骨折[字母]

IF 1.5 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Eva Hendriksen, C. Slagt
{"title":"氯普鲁卡因阻滞治疗双侧桡骨骨折[字母]","authors":"Eva Hendriksen, C. Slagt","doi":"10.2147/lra.s233411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Department Anaesthesia, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, the Netherlands Dear editor With great interest we have read the article by Mangla et al recently published in Local and Regional Anaesthesia. In this article, they present the anaesthetic considerations of a trauma patient with bilateral radial fractures. Because of posttraumatic orofacial swelling combined with a sore throat after a previous anaesthesia, they anticipated a possible difficult airway. The patient was motivated for a bilateral brachial plexus anaesthesia combined with midazolam and propofol infusion. A infraclavicular block on the right and a supraclavicular block on the left were performed under ultrasound guidance. We would like to share our thoughts regarding this anaesthetic plan with respect to patient safety. Firstly, combining different local anaesthetics is common but their toxicity is additive. Calculating maximal doses becomes blurred. Blocks become unpredictable due to changes in pKa values and alterations in free fractions of these local anaesthetics. Secondly, when pulmonary complications are a real concern we suggest to perform a bilateral axillary block since there are no concerns regarding pulmonal failure (diaphragm palsy, pneumothorax). In combination with a skin ring block to address the intercostobrachial nerve, patients will have sufficient anaesthesia to tolerate a tourniquet (if needed). Third, Mangla et al performed a bilateral brachial block using bupivacaine 0.5%. Regarding LA toxicity, ropivacaine has largely replaced bupivacaine as the most commonly used long-acting local anaesthetic in peripheral nerve blockade. In equivalent doses, it produces less motor blockade compared to bupivacaine but an equally effective sensory block. Most important ropivacaine is less cardiotoxic compared to bupivacaine. The volume of LA that was given to perform the brachial blocks was 30–40mL. An increased volume will increase the spread of local anaesthetics, increasing the chance of blocking the phrenic nerve. Especially as 20 mL of ropivacaine 0.75% or low dose ropivacaine 0.375% is sufficient in a ultrasound guided supraclavicular block. Determining the anaesthetic plan is always a delicate balance between patient wishes, surgical options, surgical and/or anaesthesia risks. Anaesthesiologists should implement the plan that minimizes the risk to the patient.","PeriodicalId":18203,"journal":{"name":"Local and Regional Anesthesia","volume":"12 1","pages":"109 - 110"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/lra.s233411","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bilateral Brachial Plexus Block Using Chloroprocaine For Surgery Of Bilateral Radial Fractures [Letter]\",\"authors\":\"Eva Hendriksen, C. Slagt\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/lra.s233411\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Department Anaesthesia, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, the Netherlands Dear editor With great interest we have read the article by Mangla et al recently published in Local and Regional Anaesthesia. In this article, they present the anaesthetic considerations of a trauma patient with bilateral radial fractures. Because of posttraumatic orofacial swelling combined with a sore throat after a previous anaesthesia, they anticipated a possible difficult airway. The patient was motivated for a bilateral brachial plexus anaesthesia combined with midazolam and propofol infusion. A infraclavicular block on the right and a supraclavicular block on the left were performed under ultrasound guidance. We would like to share our thoughts regarding this anaesthetic plan with respect to patient safety. Firstly, combining different local anaesthetics is common but their toxicity is additive. Calculating maximal doses becomes blurred. Blocks become unpredictable due to changes in pKa values and alterations in free fractions of these local anaesthetics. Secondly, when pulmonary complications are a real concern we suggest to perform a bilateral axillary block since there are no concerns regarding pulmonal failure (diaphragm palsy, pneumothorax). In combination with a skin ring block to address the intercostobrachial nerve, patients will have sufficient anaesthesia to tolerate a tourniquet (if needed). Third, Mangla et al performed a bilateral brachial block using bupivacaine 0.5%. Regarding LA toxicity, ropivacaine has largely replaced bupivacaine as the most commonly used long-acting local anaesthetic in peripheral nerve blockade. In equivalent doses, it produces less motor blockade compared to bupivacaine but an equally effective sensory block. Most important ropivacaine is less cardiotoxic compared to bupivacaine. The volume of LA that was given to perform the brachial blocks was 30–40mL. An increased volume will increase the spread of local anaesthetics, increasing the chance of blocking the phrenic nerve. Especially as 20 mL of ropivacaine 0.75% or low dose ropivacaine 0.375% is sufficient in a ultrasound guided supraclavicular block. Determining the anaesthetic plan is always a delicate balance between patient wishes, surgical options, surgical and/or anaesthesia risks. Anaesthesiologists should implement the plan that minimizes the risk to the patient.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18203,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Local and Regional Anesthesia\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"109 - 110\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/lra.s233411\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Local and Regional Anesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/lra.s233411\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Local and Regional Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/lra.s233411","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

内梅亨大学医学中心麻醉、疼痛和姑息医学系,奈梅亨,6500 HB,荷兰亲爱的编辑,我们怀着极大的兴趣阅读了Mangla等人最近发表在《局部和区域麻醉》上的文章。在这篇文章中,他们提出了麻醉的考虑创伤患者双侧桡骨骨折。由于创伤后的口面部肿胀和先前麻醉后的喉咙痛,他们预计可能会出现气道困难。患者接受双侧臂丛麻醉联合咪达唑仑和异丙酚输注。在超声引导下行右侧锁骨下阻滞术和左侧锁骨上阻滞术。我们想分享一下我们对麻醉计划的看法考虑到病人的安全。首先,不同局麻药联合使用是常见的,但其毒性是加性的。最大剂量的计算变得模糊。由于pKa值的变化和这些局部麻醉剂游离组分的改变,阻滞变得不可预测。其次,当肺部并发症是一个真正的担忧,我们建议进行双侧腋窝阻滞,因为没有担心肺衰竭(膈肌麻痹,气胸)。结合皮肤环阻滞处理肋间臂神经,患者将有足够的麻醉来耐受止血带(如果需要)。第三,Mangla等人使用0.5%布比卡因进行双侧臂丛阻滞。关于LA的毒性,罗哌卡因已在很大程度上取代布比卡因成为周围神经阻滞中最常用的长效局部麻醉剂。在同等剂量下,与布比卡因相比,它产生的运动阻断较少,但同样有效的感觉阻断。最重要的是,与布比卡因相比,罗哌卡因对心脏的毒性更小。用于肱动脉阻滞的LA体积为30-40mL。体积增加会增加局部麻醉剂的扩散,增加膈神经阻塞的机会。特别是20毫升0.75%的罗哌卡因或0.375%的低剂量罗哌卡因在超声引导下的锁骨上阻滞是足够的。确定麻醉方案总是在患者意愿、手术选择、手术和/或麻醉风险之间取得微妙的平衡。麻醉师应该执行使病人风险最小化的计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bilateral Brachial Plexus Block Using Chloroprocaine For Surgery Of Bilateral Radial Fractures [Letter]
Department Anaesthesia, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, the Netherlands Dear editor With great interest we have read the article by Mangla et al recently published in Local and Regional Anaesthesia. In this article, they present the anaesthetic considerations of a trauma patient with bilateral radial fractures. Because of posttraumatic orofacial swelling combined with a sore throat after a previous anaesthesia, they anticipated a possible difficult airway. The patient was motivated for a bilateral brachial plexus anaesthesia combined with midazolam and propofol infusion. A infraclavicular block on the right and a supraclavicular block on the left were performed under ultrasound guidance. We would like to share our thoughts regarding this anaesthetic plan with respect to patient safety. Firstly, combining different local anaesthetics is common but their toxicity is additive. Calculating maximal doses becomes blurred. Blocks become unpredictable due to changes in pKa values and alterations in free fractions of these local anaesthetics. Secondly, when pulmonary complications are a real concern we suggest to perform a bilateral axillary block since there are no concerns regarding pulmonal failure (diaphragm palsy, pneumothorax). In combination with a skin ring block to address the intercostobrachial nerve, patients will have sufficient anaesthesia to tolerate a tourniquet (if needed). Third, Mangla et al performed a bilateral brachial block using bupivacaine 0.5%. Regarding LA toxicity, ropivacaine has largely replaced bupivacaine as the most commonly used long-acting local anaesthetic in peripheral nerve blockade. In equivalent doses, it produces less motor blockade compared to bupivacaine but an equally effective sensory block. Most important ropivacaine is less cardiotoxic compared to bupivacaine. The volume of LA that was given to perform the brachial blocks was 30–40mL. An increased volume will increase the spread of local anaesthetics, increasing the chance of blocking the phrenic nerve. Especially as 20 mL of ropivacaine 0.75% or low dose ropivacaine 0.375% is sufficient in a ultrasound guided supraclavicular block. Determining the anaesthetic plan is always a delicate balance between patient wishes, surgical options, surgical and/or anaesthesia risks. Anaesthesiologists should implement the plan that minimizes the risk to the patient.
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
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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