超声引导下菱形阻滞与椎旁阻滞在视频胸腔镜手术术后镇痛中的对比:一项前瞻性随机对照临床试验。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Yan Wang, Xiaoping Gu, Simin Huang, Minke Shi, Xiaofeng He, Zhengliang Ma
{"title":"超声引导下菱形阻滞与椎旁阻滞在视频胸腔镜手术术后镇痛中的对比:一项前瞻性随机对照临床试验。","authors":"Yan Wang,&nbsp;Xiaoping Gu,&nbsp;Simin Huang,&nbsp;Minke Shi,&nbsp;Xiaofeng He,&nbsp;Zhengliang Ma","doi":"10.1155/2023/3924511","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The anesthetic efficacy of the ultrasound-guided rhomboid intercostal block (RIB) in alleviating postoperative pain has been well concerned. This study aims to compare the effectiveness between ultrasound-guided RIB and paravertebral block (PVB) in alleviating acute pain following video-assisted thoracic surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>It was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial involving 132 patients with video-assisted thoracic surgery divided into three groups: the general anesthesia (GA) group, RIB group, and PVB group on T5 vertebra, using 0.4% ropivacaine at 3 mg/kg, registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100054057, \"https://www.chictr.org.cn\"). The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at rest and cough during 48 h postoperatively and the postoperative consumption of pain rescue were the primary outcomes, and the QoR15 score 48 h postoperatively, the usage of opioids during and after operation, and nerve block-related complications were the secondary outcomes. Demographic characteristics, surgery characteristics, and primary outcomes between the groups were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 120 eligible patients were recruited, including 40 in each group. Baseline and surgery characteristics between the groups were comparable (all <i>p</i> > 0.05). The PVB and RIB groups were better than the GA group in the primary and secondary outcomes (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The static VAS score, QoR15 score, and block-related complications within 48 hours after surgery were better in the RIB group than in the PVB group (<i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both PVB and RIB can provide adequate analgesia and accelerate the recovery of patients. Compared with PVB, RIB has a better analgesic effect, especially to avoid paravertebral pain caused by block, and the operation of RIB is more straightforward and the safety is higher.</p>","PeriodicalId":19913,"journal":{"name":"Pain Research & Management","volume":"2023 ","pages":"3924511"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9995189/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ultrasound-Guided Rhomboid Block versus Paravertebral Block in Postoperative Analgesia for Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Yan Wang,&nbsp;Xiaoping Gu,&nbsp;Simin Huang,&nbsp;Minke Shi,&nbsp;Xiaofeng He,&nbsp;Zhengliang Ma\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2023/3924511\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The anesthetic efficacy of the ultrasound-guided rhomboid intercostal block (RIB) in alleviating postoperative pain has been well concerned. This study aims to compare the effectiveness between ultrasound-guided RIB and paravertebral block (PVB) in alleviating acute pain following video-assisted thoracic surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>It was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial involving 132 patients with video-assisted thoracic surgery divided into three groups: the general anesthesia (GA) group, RIB group, and PVB group on T5 vertebra, using 0.4% ropivacaine at 3 mg/kg, registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100054057, \\\"https://www.chictr.org.cn\\\"). The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at rest and cough during 48 h postoperatively and the postoperative consumption of pain rescue were the primary outcomes, and the QoR15 score 48 h postoperatively, the usage of opioids during and after operation, and nerve block-related complications were the secondary outcomes. Demographic characteristics, surgery characteristics, and primary outcomes between the groups were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 120 eligible patients were recruited, including 40 in each group. Baseline and surgery characteristics between the groups were comparable (all <i>p</i> > 0.05). The PVB and RIB groups were better than the GA group in the primary and secondary outcomes (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The static VAS score, QoR15 score, and block-related complications within 48 hours after surgery were better in the RIB group than in the PVB group (<i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both PVB and RIB can provide adequate analgesia and accelerate the recovery of patients. Compared with PVB, RIB has a better analgesic effect, especially to avoid paravertebral pain caused by block, and the operation of RIB is more straightforward and the safety is higher.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19913,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain Research & Management\",\"volume\":\"2023 \",\"pages\":\"3924511\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9995189/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain Research & Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/3924511\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Research & Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/3924511","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

超声引导下菱形肋间阻滞(rhomboid interbrial block, RIB)减轻术后疼痛的麻醉效果一直备受关注。本研究旨在比较超声引导下肋骨与椎旁阻滞(PVB)在缓解电视胸外科手术后急性疼痛方面的效果。方法:采用前瞻性、随机、双盲临床试验,纳入132例胸腔镜手术患者,分为T5椎体全麻(GA)组、RIB组和PVB组,使用罗哌卡因0.4%,剂量为3 mg/kg,已在中国临床试验注册中心注册(ChiCTR2100054057,“https://www.chictr.org.cn”)。术后48 h休息和咳嗽时视觉模拟评分(VAS)评分及术后疼痛抢救消耗为主要观察指标,术后48 h QoR15评分、术中及术后阿片类药物使用情况、神经阻滞相关并发症为次要观察指标。比较两组患者的人口学特征、手术特征和主要结局。结果:共纳入符合条件的患者120例,每组40例。两组间基线和手术特征具有可比性(均p > 0.05)。PVB组和RIB组的主要和次要结局均优于GA组(p < 0.05)。术后48 h内,RIB组的静态VAS评分、QoR15评分、阻滞相关并发症均优于PVB组(p < 0.001)。结论:PVB和RIB均能提供充分的镇痛,促进患者的康复。与PVB相比,RIB具有更好的镇痛效果,尤其可以避免因阻滞引起的椎旁疼痛,并且RIB的操作更直接,安全性更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Ultrasound-Guided Rhomboid Block versus Paravertebral Block in Postoperative Analgesia for Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Ultrasound-Guided Rhomboid Block versus Paravertebral Block in Postoperative Analgesia for Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Ultrasound-Guided Rhomboid Block versus Paravertebral Block in Postoperative Analgesia for Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Ultrasound-Guided Rhomboid Block versus Paravertebral Block in Postoperative Analgesia for Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Introduction: The anesthetic efficacy of the ultrasound-guided rhomboid intercostal block (RIB) in alleviating postoperative pain has been well concerned. This study aims to compare the effectiveness between ultrasound-guided RIB and paravertebral block (PVB) in alleviating acute pain following video-assisted thoracic surgery.

Methods: It was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial involving 132 patients with video-assisted thoracic surgery divided into three groups: the general anesthesia (GA) group, RIB group, and PVB group on T5 vertebra, using 0.4% ropivacaine at 3 mg/kg, registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100054057, "https://www.chictr.org.cn"). The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at rest and cough during 48 h postoperatively and the postoperative consumption of pain rescue were the primary outcomes, and the QoR15 score 48 h postoperatively, the usage of opioids during and after operation, and nerve block-related complications were the secondary outcomes. Demographic characteristics, surgery characteristics, and primary outcomes between the groups were compared.

Results: A total of 120 eligible patients were recruited, including 40 in each group. Baseline and surgery characteristics between the groups were comparable (all p > 0.05). The PVB and RIB groups were better than the GA group in the primary and secondary outcomes (p < 0.05). The static VAS score, QoR15 score, and block-related complications within 48 hours after surgery were better in the RIB group than in the PVB group (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Both PVB and RIB can provide adequate analgesia and accelerate the recovery of patients. Compared with PVB, RIB has a better analgesic effect, especially to avoid paravertebral pain caused by block, and the operation of RIB is more straightforward and the safety is higher.

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
Pain Research & Management
Pain Research & Management CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
109
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Research and Management is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of pain management. The most recent Impact Factor for Pain Research and Management is 1.685 according to the 2015 Journal Citation Reports released by Thomson Reuters in 2016.
×
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