Suppr超能文献

[关于产科硬膜外镇痛替代方法的全国前瞻性调查]

[Prospective national survey on alternatives to obstetrical peridural analgesia].

作者信息

Bergeret S, Loffredo P, Bosson J L, Palot M, Seebacher J, Benhamou D, Payen J F

机构信息

Département d'anesthésie-réanimation, hôpital Michallon, Grenoble, France.

出版信息

Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2000 Aug;19(7):530-9. doi: 10.1016/s0750-7658(00)00248-3.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the type of an alternative technique for epidural analgesia for pain relief during labour, the reason of its choice and its efficiency.

STUDY DESIGN

A one-year prospective survey in 34 french hospitals.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A questionnaire was filled for each request for a non-epidural technique during labour. The data recorded the reason for this non-epidural method, the technique used, the repeated visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores before (T0) and during the treatment (T30, T60 T120,...), the maternal and foetal side effects of the method, and the maternal satisfaction.

RESULTS

177 questionnaires were studied among the 270 collected. The lack of VAS measurements was the main reason for excluding questionnaires. Refusing the epidural by the obstetric patient was the most frequent reason for requesting a non-epidural method (39%). Five non-epidural methods were identified: nalbuphine (NAL, n = 75), sufentanil by patient-controlled analgesia (SUF, n = 44), nitrous oxide/oxygen inhalation (N2O, n = 22), pethidine (PET, n = 19), and spinal analgesia (SA, n = 17). The choice of the method was dependant on the prescribe (midwife or anaesthetist) and of the cervical dilation. The SA group exhibited the most pain relief compared to the other groups during the treatment. No difference in pain relief was noted between the 4 groups (SUF, NAL, PET, N2O). Only in the PET group did the VAS pain score remain unchanged at T30. There were 25 maternal side effects, with a significant maternal sedation in the NAL group, and pruritus in the SA group. There were 6 respiratory depressions in infants, unrelated with the analgesic method. Maternal satisfaction was higher in the SA, SUF and N2O groups than in the PET and NAL groups. Factors explaining lack of analgesic effect (i.e. no decrease in VAS pain score more than 10 mm during the treatment) were the use of pethidine, the VAS pain score at T0 and the induced labour.

CONCLUSION

Epidural and spinal analgesia are the most efficient methods for pain relief during labour. The analgesic effect of non-regional methods during labour is minimal, associated with some maternal side effects. Due to its lack of analgesic effect, pethidine should be avoided in this indication.

摘要

目的

评估一种用于分娩镇痛的替代技术的类型、选择该技术的原因及其效果。

研究设计

在34家法国医院进行为期一年的前瞻性调查。

材料与方法

为每例分娩时使用非硬膜外技术的申请填写一份问卷。数据记录了采用这种非硬膜外方法的原因、所使用的技术、治疗前(T0)和治疗期间(T30、T60、T120……)重复测量的视觉模拟评分(VAS)疼痛评分、该方法对母婴的副作用以及产妇满意度。

结果

在收集的270份问卷中,研究了177份。缺乏VAS测量是排除问卷的主要原因。产科患者拒绝硬膜外麻醉是申请非硬膜外方法最常见的原因(39%)。确定了五种非硬膜外方法:纳布啡(NAL,n = 75)、患者自控镇痛使用舒芬太尼(SUF,n = 44)、氧化亚氮/氧气吸入(N2O,n = 22)、哌替啶(PET,n = 19)和脊髓镇痛(SA,n = 17)。方法的选择取决于开处方者(助产士或麻醉医生)以及宫颈扩张情况。与其他组相比,SA组在治疗期间疼痛缓解最为明显。4组(SUF、NAL、PET、N2O)之间在疼痛缓解方面未观察到差异。仅在PET组,VAS疼痛评分在T30时保持不变。有25例产妇出现副作用,NAL组有明显的产妇镇静,SA组有瘙痒。有6例婴儿出现呼吸抑制,与镇痛方法无关。SA、SUF和N2O组的产妇满意度高于PET和NAL组。解释镇痛效果不佳(即治疗期间VAS疼痛评分下降不超过10 mm)的因素包括哌替啶的使用、T0时的VAS疼痛评分以及引产。

结论

硬膜外和脊髓镇痛是分娩时最有效的镇痛方法。分娩期间非区域方法的镇痛效果最小,且伴有一些产妇副作用。由于其缺乏镇痛效果,在该适应证中应避免使用哌替啶。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验