单侧脊髓麻醉优化方法:一项双盲随机临床研究

Q2 Medicine
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Pub Date : 2023-04-02 eCollection Date: 2023-04-01 DOI:10.5812/aapm-135927
Yernar Dauletovich Mamyrov, Daulet Urazovich Mamyrov, Gulzhanat Ertaevna Jakova, Yoshihiro Noso, Marat Kelisovich Syzdykbayev
{"title":"单侧脊髓麻醉优化方法:一项双盲随机临床研究","authors":"Yernar Dauletovich Mamyrov,&nbsp;Daulet Urazovich Mamyrov,&nbsp;Gulzhanat Ertaevna Jakova,&nbsp;Yoshihiro Noso,&nbsp;Marat Kelisovich Syzdykbayev","doi":"10.5812/aapm-135927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Unilateral spinal anesthesia is often accompanied by technical difficulties in implementation, multiple puncture attempts, unsuccessful punctures, and, as a result, insufficient anesthesia, along with various complications associated with a dural puncture.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This work compares the efficacy and safety of conventional Unilateral Spinal Anesthesia (USpA) and unilateral spinal anesthesia with electrical nerve stimulation (USpA+ENS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 134 patients with an upcoming vascular surgery on one lower extremity were randomly assigned to two groups. All the patients were positioned with the operated limb below and used 7.5 mg of Bupivacaine-Spinal®. In the UsPA group, anesthesia was performed according to the standard technique. In the USpA+ENS group, electrical nerve stimulation was additionally used. Primary outcomes were the presence or absence of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH), number of puncture attempts, lateralization, and anesthesia adequacy. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative pain scores, the presence or absence of nausea and vomiting, and the need for hemodynamics correction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The frequency of puncture complications was sufficiently lower in the USpA+ENS group than in the UsPA group. The local anesthetic solution distribution, pain score indicators, and secondary outcomes were comparable in both groups with a slight difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We showed that USpA+ENS reduces the incidence of puncture complications and improves the quality of anesthesia and adherence of both patients and anesthesiologists to the unilateral spinal anesthesia technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":7841,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e135927"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10612216/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimized Method of Unilateral Spinal Anesthesia: A Double-blind, Randomized Clinical Study.\",\"authors\":\"Yernar Dauletovich Mamyrov,&nbsp;Daulet Urazovich Mamyrov,&nbsp;Gulzhanat Ertaevna Jakova,&nbsp;Yoshihiro Noso,&nbsp;Marat Kelisovich Syzdykbayev\",\"doi\":\"10.5812/aapm-135927\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Unilateral spinal anesthesia is often accompanied by technical difficulties in implementation, multiple puncture attempts, unsuccessful punctures, and, as a result, insufficient anesthesia, along with various complications associated with a dural puncture.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This work compares the efficacy and safety of conventional Unilateral Spinal Anesthesia (USpA) and unilateral spinal anesthesia with electrical nerve stimulation (USpA+ENS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 134 patients with an upcoming vascular surgery on one lower extremity were randomly assigned to two groups. All the patients were positioned with the operated limb below and used 7.5 mg of Bupivacaine-Spinal®. In the UsPA group, anesthesia was performed according to the standard technique. In the USpA+ENS group, electrical nerve stimulation was additionally used. Primary outcomes were the presence or absence of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH), number of puncture attempts, lateralization, and anesthesia adequacy. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative pain scores, the presence or absence of nausea and vomiting, and the need for hemodynamics correction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The frequency of puncture complications was sufficiently lower in the USpA+ENS group than in the UsPA group. The local anesthetic solution distribution, pain score indicators, and secondary outcomes were comparable in both groups with a slight difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We showed that USpA+ENS reduces the incidence of puncture complications and improves the quality of anesthesia and adherence of both patients and anesthesiologists to the unilateral spinal anesthesia technique.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e135927\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10612216/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5812/aapm-135927\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/aapm-135927","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:单侧脊髓麻醉通常伴随着技术上的困难,多次穿刺尝试,穿刺失败,结果麻醉不足,以及与硬脑膜穿刺相关的各种并发症。目的:比较常规单侧脊髓麻醉(USpA)与单侧脊髓麻醉加神经电刺激(USpA+ENS)的疗效和安全性。方法:134例即将行下肢血管手术的患者随机分为两组。所有患者均置于手术肢体下方,并使用7.5 mg布比卡因-脊柱®。UsPA组按标准麻醉方法麻醉。USpA+ENS组在此基础上加用神经电刺激。主要结局是有无硬脑膜穿刺后头痛(PDPH)、穿刺次数、侧边化和麻醉充分性。次要结局是术中疼痛评分,有无恶心和呕吐,以及是否需要血流动力学校正。结果:USpA+ENS组穿刺并发症发生率明显低于USpA组。两组的局麻溶液分布、疼痛评分指标和次要结局具有可比性,差异轻微。结论:USpA+ENS减少了穿刺并发症的发生率,提高了麻醉质量,提高了患者和麻醉师对单侧脊髓麻醉技术的依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Optimized Method of Unilateral Spinal Anesthesia: A Double-blind, Randomized Clinical Study.

Optimized Method of Unilateral Spinal Anesthesia: A Double-blind, Randomized Clinical Study.

Background: Unilateral spinal anesthesia is often accompanied by technical difficulties in implementation, multiple puncture attempts, unsuccessful punctures, and, as a result, insufficient anesthesia, along with various complications associated with a dural puncture.

Objectives: This work compares the efficacy and safety of conventional Unilateral Spinal Anesthesia (USpA) and unilateral spinal anesthesia with electrical nerve stimulation (USpA+ENS).

Methods: A total of 134 patients with an upcoming vascular surgery on one lower extremity were randomly assigned to two groups. All the patients were positioned with the operated limb below and used 7.5 mg of Bupivacaine-Spinal®. In the UsPA group, anesthesia was performed according to the standard technique. In the USpA+ENS group, electrical nerve stimulation was additionally used. Primary outcomes were the presence or absence of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH), number of puncture attempts, lateralization, and anesthesia adequacy. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative pain scores, the presence or absence of nausea and vomiting, and the need for hemodynamics correction.

Results: The frequency of puncture complications was sufficiently lower in the USpA+ENS group than in the UsPA group. The local anesthetic solution distribution, pain score indicators, and secondary outcomes were comparable in both groups with a slight difference.

Conclusions: We showed that USpA+ENS reduces the incidence of puncture complications and improves the quality of anesthesia and adherence of both patients and anesthesiologists to the unilateral spinal anesthesia technique.

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
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
×
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