• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

比较腹腔镜节段性结肠切除术后硬膜外麻醉与患者自控镇痛的随机临床试验。

Randomized clinical trial comparing epidural anaesthesia and patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic segmental colectomy.

作者信息

Senagore A J, Delaney C P, Mekhail N, Dugan A, Fazio V W

机构信息

Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA.

出版信息

Br J Surg. 2003 Oct;90(10):1195-9. doi: 10.1002/bjs.4223.

DOI:10.1002/bjs.4223
PMID:14515286
Abstract

BACKGROUND

This randomized clinical trial compared the use of thoracic epidural anaesthesia-analgesia (TEA) with morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for pain relief after laparoscopic colectomy.

METHODS

Patients scheduled for segmental laparoscopic colectomy were randomized to receive TEA or PCA. Patients in the TEA group received bupivacaine and fentanyl before incision and after surgery by continuous infusion for 18 h. Patients in the PCA group self-administered morphine using an intravenous pump. The postoperative care plan was otherwise identical for the two groups. Postoperative pain was measured during ambulation using a visual analogue pain score.

RESULTS

The study included 38 patients (18 TEA, 20 PCA), 16 of whom underwent right hemicolectomy or ileocolectomy and 22 sigmoid colectomy. Operating times, patient weight and distribution of American Society of Anesthesiologists grade were similar in the two groups. The mean(s.e.m.) total dose of drugs administered was 64(41) mg morphine in the PCA group, and 79(42) mg bupivacaine and 205(140) micro g fentanyl in the TEA group. Postoperative pain scores were significantly better in the TEA group at 6 h (mean(s.e.m.) 2.2(0.4) versus 6.6(0.5) with PCA; P = 0.001) and 18 h (2.2(0.3) versus 4.0(0.4); P = 0.003). Hospital stay was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

TEA significantly improved early analgesia following laparoscopic colectomy but did not affect the length of hospital stay.

摘要

背景

本随机临床试验比较了胸段硬膜外麻醉镇痛(TEA)与吗啡患者自控镇痛(PCA)用于腹腔镜结肠切除术后疼痛缓解的效果。

方法

计划行节段性腹腔镜结肠切除术的患者被随机分为接受TEA或PCA组。TEA组患者在切口前及术后接受布比卡因和芬太尼持续输注18小时。PCA组患者使用静脉泵自行注射吗啡。两组的术后护理方案相同。术后在患者活动期间使用视觉模拟疼痛评分法测量疼痛程度。

结果

该研究纳入38例患者(18例TEA组,20例PCA组),其中16例行右半结肠切除术或回结肠切除术,22例行乙状结肠切除术。两组的手术时间、患者体重及美国麻醉医师协会分级分布相似。PCA组给药的平均(标准误)总剂量为64(41)mg吗啡,TEA组为79(42)mg布比卡因和205(140)μg芬太尼。TEA组术后6小时(平均(标准误)2.2(0.4),PCA组为6.6(0.5);P = 0.001)和18小时(2.2(0.3)对4.0(0.4);P = 0.003)的疼痛评分明显更好。两组的住院时间相似。

结论

TEA显著改善了腹腔镜结肠切除术后的早期镇痛,但不影响住院时间。

相似文献

1
Randomized clinical trial comparing epidural anaesthesia and patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic segmental colectomy.比较腹腔镜节段性结肠切除术后硬膜外麻醉与患者自控镇痛的随机临床试验。
Br J Surg. 2003 Oct;90(10):1195-9. doi: 10.1002/bjs.4223.
2
Ultra-fast-track anesthesia in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: a prospective audit comparing opioid-based anesthesia vs thoracic epidural-based anesthesia.非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术中的超快通道麻醉:一项比较阿片类麻醉与胸段硬膜外麻醉的前瞻性审计
Can J Anaesth. 2004 Feb;51(2):163-8. doi: 10.1007/BF03018777.
3
Randomized controlled trial comparing the controlled rehabilitation with early ambulation and diet pathway versus the controlled rehabilitation with early ambulation and diet with preemptive epidural anesthesia/analgesia after laparotomy and intestinal resection.一项随机对照试验,比较剖腹术和肠切除术后采用早期活动及饮食途径的控制性康复与采用早期活动及饮食并预防性硬膜外麻醉/镇痛的控制性康复。
Am J Surg. 2005 Mar;189(3):268-72. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.11.012.
4
Epidural anesthesia-analgesia shortens length of stay after laparoscopic segmental colectomy for benign pathology.硬膜外麻醉镇痛可缩短良性病变腹腔镜节段性结肠切除术后的住院时间。
Surgery. 2001 Jun;129(6):672-6. doi: 10.1067/msy.2001.114648.
5
The effect of epidural vs intravenous analgesia for posterior spinal fusion surgery.硬膜外镇痛与静脉镇痛用于后路脊柱融合手术的效果比较
Paediatr Anaesth. 2004 Dec;14(12):1009-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2004.01387.x.
6
Cost-effectiveness of thoracic patient-controlled epidural analgesia using bupivacaine with fentanyl vs bupivacaine with morphine after thoracotomy and upper abdominal surgery.开胸手术和上腹部手术后,使用布比卡因联合芬太尼与布比卡因联合吗啡进行胸部患者自控硬膜外镇痛的成本效益分析。
J Med Assoc Thai. 2005 Jul;88(7):921-7.
7
Combined spinal-epidural analgesia vs. intermittent bolus epidural analgesia for pain relief after major abdominal surgery. A prospective, randomised, double-blind clinical trial.腰麻-硬膜外联合镇痛与间歇性推注硬膜外镇痛用于腹部大手术后疼痛缓解的比较。一项前瞻性、随机、双盲临床试验。
Int J Clin Pract. 2008 Feb;62(2):255-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01642.x. Epub 2007 Nov 20.
8
Randomized clinical trial of local bupivacaine perfusion versus parenteral morphine infusion for pain relief after laparotomy.布比卡因局部灌注与胃肠外吗啡输注用于剖腹术后镇痛的随机临床试验
Br J Surg. 2001 Mar;88(3):357-9. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01717.x.
9
Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with patient-controlled epidural analgesia after lumbar spinal fusion.腰椎融合术后患者自控静脉镇痛与患者自控硬膜外镇痛比较的前瞻性随机临床试验。
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Apr 15;28(8):739-43.
10
Is single-shot epidural analgesia more effective than morphine patient-controlled analgesia for donor nephrectomy?对于供体肾切除术,单次硬膜外镇痛比吗啡患者自控镇痛更有效吗?
Transplant Proc. 2011 Dec;43(10):3588-92. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2011.08.116.

引用本文的文献

1
Pain, opioid consumption, and epidural anesthesia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing laparoscopic subtotal colectomy: an observational cohort study.炎症性肠病患者行腹腔镜次全结肠切除术时的疼痛、阿片类药物使用及硬膜外麻醉:一项观察性队列研究
Tech Coloproctol. 2025 Mar 7;29(1):75. doi: 10.1007/s10151-025-03118-2.
2
Thoracic epidural analgesia vs. patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for patients undergoing open or laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: An observational study.开腹或腹腔镜结直肠癌手术患者的胸段硬膜外镇痛与患者自控静脉镇痛:一项观察性研究。
Eur J Anaesthesiol Intensive Care. 2023 Jan 4;2(1):e0013. doi: 10.1097/EA9.0000000000000013. eCollection 2023 Feb.
3
Prospective observational study comparing the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy with or without epidural anesthesia: the Kanagawa Yokohama Colorectal Cancer Study Group (KYCC) 1806.
前瞻性观察研究比较了腹腔镜结肠切除术联合或不联合硬膜外麻醉的围手术期结果:神奈川横浜结直肠癌研究组(KYCC)1806。
Surg Today. 2024 Nov;54(11):1353-1359. doi: 10.1007/s00595-024-02856-4. Epub 2024 May 4.
4
Epidural versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia on pain relief and recovery after laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: randomized clinical trial.硬膜外与患者自控静脉镇痛对胃癌腹腔镜手术后疼痛缓解和恢复的影响:随机临床试验。
BJS Open. 2024 Jan 3;8(1). doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad161.
5
Safety and Feasibility of a Discharge within 23 Hours after Colorectal Laparoscopic Surgery.结直肠腹腔镜手术后23小时内出院的安全性和可行性
J Clin Med. 2022 Aug 29;11(17):5068. doi: 10.3390/jcm11175068.
6
Regional techniques for pain management following laparoscopic elective colonic resection: A systematic review.腹腔镜选择性结肠切除术后疼痛管理的区域技术:一项系统评价。
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021 Dec 1;72:103124. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.103124. eCollection 2021 Dec.
7
A multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of variation in practice in perioperative analgesia strategies in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery (the LapCoGesic study).一项关于择期腹腔镜结直肠手术围手术期镇痛策略实践差异的多中心、前瞻性、观察性队列研究(LapCoGesic研究)。
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2020 Jan;102(1):28-35. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2019.0091. Epub 2019 Jun 24.
8
Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) versus patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in laparoscopic colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.胸腔硬膜外镇痛(TEA)与患者自控镇痛(PCA)用于腹腔镜结肠切除术的比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2019 Jan;34(1):27-38. doi: 10.1007/s00384-018-3207-3. Epub 2018 Dec 5.
9
Epidural analgesia in the era of enhanced recovery: time to rethink its use?硬膜外镇痛在加速康复时代:是否需要重新考虑其应用?
Surg Endosc. 2019 Jul;33(7):2197-2205. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6505-5. Epub 2018 Oct 23.
10
Epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for pain following intra-abdominal surgery in adults.成人腹部手术后疼痛的硬膜外镇痛与患者自控静脉镇痛对比
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 30;8(8):CD010434. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010434.pub2.