可乐定和地塞米松辅助罗哌卡因用于超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞的比较评价

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Hemlata, R. Singh, R. Verma, D. Singh, A. Chaudhary, B. Kushwaha
{"title":"可乐定和地塞米松辅助罗哌卡因用于超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞的比较评价","authors":"Hemlata, R. Singh, R. Verma, D. Singh, A. Chaudhary, B. Kushwaha","doi":"10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_105_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: This study aims to study the effect of addition of clonidine and dexamethasone to ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided TAP block in patients undergoing abdominal surgeries. We primarily compared the quality and duration of postoperative analgesia. Materials and Methods: This randomized double-blind study was done after taking approval from Institutional Ethical Committee and written informed consent from all the patients. Sixty patients undergoing abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled in the study and randomly divided into two groups: Group-RC (n = 30) and Group-RD (n = 30). Patients in both the groups were given bilateral ultrasound-guided TAP block at the end of surgery. Patients in Group-RC received 20 ml ropivacaine 0.2% with 75 μg clonidine on each side and patients in Group-RD received 20 ml ropivacaine 0.2% with 4 mg dexamethasone on each side. Results: Visual analogue scale score for pain was significantly less in Group-RC as compared to Group-RD at all-time intervals (P <.05). Duration of pain relief in Group-RC was significantly greater than in Group-RD (16.50 ± 6.68 vs. 9.67 ± 6.46 h; P = 0.001). Requirement of rescue analgesia was also significantly less in Group-RC as compared to Group-RD (80% vs. 90%; P = 0.014). Except for a higher incidence of nausea in Group-RC, there was no other significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups. Conclusion: Addition of Clonidine (75 μg) to ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided TAP block provides better and prolonged postoperative analgesia as compared to addition of dexamethasone (4 mg) without any significant side-effects.","PeriodicalId":42359,"journal":{"name":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of clonidine and dexamethasone as adjuvants to ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block\",\"authors\":\"Hemlata, R. Singh, R. Verma, D. Singh, A. Chaudhary, B. Kushwaha\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_105_20\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: This study aims to study the effect of addition of clonidine and dexamethasone to ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided TAP block in patients undergoing abdominal surgeries. We primarily compared the quality and duration of postoperative analgesia. Materials and Methods: This randomized double-blind study was done after taking approval from Institutional Ethical Committee and written informed consent from all the patients. Sixty patients undergoing abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled in the study and randomly divided into two groups: Group-RC (n = 30) and Group-RD (n = 30). Patients in both the groups were given bilateral ultrasound-guided TAP block at the end of surgery. Patients in Group-RC received 20 ml ropivacaine 0.2% with 75 μg clonidine on each side and patients in Group-RD received 20 ml ropivacaine 0.2% with 4 mg dexamethasone on each side. Results: Visual analogue scale score for pain was significantly less in Group-RC as compared to Group-RD at all-time intervals (P <.05). Duration of pain relief in Group-RC was significantly greater than in Group-RD (16.50 ± 6.68 vs. 9.67 ± 6.46 h; P = 0.001). Requirement of rescue analgesia was also significantly less in Group-RC as compared to Group-RD (80% vs. 90%; P = 0.014). Except for a higher incidence of nausea in Group-RC, there was no other significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups. Conclusion: Addition of Clonidine (75 μg) to ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided TAP block provides better and prolonged postoperative analgesia as compared to addition of dexamethasone (4 mg) without any significant side-effects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42359,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Anaesthetists Forum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Anaesthetists Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_105_20\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_105_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:研究在罗哌卡因基础上加用可乐定、地塞米松进行超声引导下腹部手术患者TAP阻滞的效果。我们主要比较了术后镇痛的质量和持续时间。材料和方法:本随机双盲研究经机构伦理委员会批准并获得所有患者的书面知情同意后完成。60例全麻下腹部手术患者纳入研究,随机分为两组:rc组(n = 30)和rd组(n = 30)。两组患者均在手术结束时给予双侧超声引导下的TAP阻滞。rc组患者给予罗哌卡因0.2% 20 ml,每侧加75 μg可乐定;rd组患者给予罗哌卡因0.2% 20 ml,每侧加4 mg地塞米松。结果:与rd组相比,rc组疼痛视觉模拟评分在所有时间间隔内均显著降低(P < 0.05)。rc组疼痛缓解时间显著大于rd组(16.50±6.68∶9.67±6.46 h);P = 0.001)。与rd组相比,rc组对抢救性镇痛的需求也显著减少(80% vs 90%;P = 0.014)。除了rc组恶心发生率较高外,两组间并发症发生率无显著差异。结论:超声引导下TAP阻滞时,在罗哌卡因中添加可乐定(75 μg)比添加地塞米松(4 mg)具有更好、更持久的术后镇痛效果,且无明显副作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative evaluation of clonidine and dexamethasone as adjuvants to ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block
Aim: This study aims to study the effect of addition of clonidine and dexamethasone to ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided TAP block in patients undergoing abdominal surgeries. We primarily compared the quality and duration of postoperative analgesia. Materials and Methods: This randomized double-blind study was done after taking approval from Institutional Ethical Committee and written informed consent from all the patients. Sixty patients undergoing abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled in the study and randomly divided into two groups: Group-RC (n = 30) and Group-RD (n = 30). Patients in both the groups were given bilateral ultrasound-guided TAP block at the end of surgery. Patients in Group-RC received 20 ml ropivacaine 0.2% with 75 μg clonidine on each side and patients in Group-RD received 20 ml ropivacaine 0.2% with 4 mg dexamethasone on each side. Results: Visual analogue scale score for pain was significantly less in Group-RC as compared to Group-RD at all-time intervals (P <.05). Duration of pain relief in Group-RC was significantly greater than in Group-RD (16.50 ± 6.68 vs. 9.67 ± 6.46 h; P = 0.001). Requirement of rescue analgesia was also significantly less in Group-RC as compared to Group-RD (80% vs. 90%; P = 0.014). Except for a higher incidence of nausea in Group-RC, there was no other significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups. Conclusion: Addition of Clonidine (75 μg) to ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided TAP block provides better and prolonged postoperative analgesia as compared to addition of dexamethasone (4 mg) without any significant side-effects.
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
Indian Anaesthetists Forum
Indian Anaesthetists Forum ANESTHESIOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
6 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