Suppr超能文献

在门诊膝关节关节镜检查中,与全身麻醉相比,周围神经阻滞可带来更好的恢复情况。

Peripheral nerve blocks result in superior recovery profile compared with general anesthesia in outpatient knee arthroscopy.

作者信息

Hadzic Admir, Karaca Pelin Emine, Hobeika Paul, Unis George, Dermksian Jeffrey, Yufa Marina, Claudio Richard, Vloka Jerry D, Santos Alan C, Thys Daniel M

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York, New York.

出版信息

Anesth Analg. 2005 Apr;100(4):976-981. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000150944.95158.B9.

Abstract

It has been suggested that use of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) may have some potential benefits in the outpatient setting. There have been no studies specifically comparing PNBs performed with short-acting local anesthetics with general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing outpatient knee surgery. We hypothesized that a combination of lumbar plexus and sciatic blocks using a short-acting local anesthetic will result in shorter time-to-discharge-home as compared with GA. Patients scheduled to undergo knee arthroscopy were randomized to receive a GA (midazolam, fentanyl, propofol, N(2)O/O(2)/desflurane via laryngeal mask airway) or lumbar plexus/sciatic block (PNBs; 2-chloroprocaine). Patients given GA also received an intraarticular injection of 20 mL 0.25% bupivacaine for postoperative pain control. Patients in the PNB group were given midazolam (up to 4 mg) and alfentanil (500-750 microg) before block placement and propofol 30-50 microg . kg(-1) . min(-1) for intraoperative sedation. Relevant perioperative times, postanesthesia care unit bypass rate, severity of pain, and incidence of complications were compared between the two groups. Fifty patients were enrolled in the study; 25 patients each received GA or PNBs. Total operating room time did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (97 +/- 37 versus 91 +/- 42 min). Seventy-two percent of patients receiving PNB met criteria enabling them to bypass Phase I postanesthesia care unit compared with only 24% of those receiving GA (P < 0.002). Time to meet criteria for discharge home (home readiness) and time to actual discharge were significantly shorter for patients given PNBs than for patients given GA (131 +/- 62 versus 205 +/- 94 and 162 +/- 71 versus 226 +/- 96, respectively). Under the conditions of our study, the combination of lumbar plexus and sciatic blocks with 2-chloroprocaine 3% was associated with a superior recovery profile compared with GA in patients having outpatient knee arthroscopy.

摘要

有人提出,在门诊环境中使用外周神经阻滞(PNB)可能有一些潜在益处。目前尚无专门比较门诊膝关节手术患者使用短效局麻药进行PNB与全身麻醉(GA)的研究。我们假设,与GA相比,使用短效局麻药联合腰丛和坐骨神经阻滞可缩短出院时间。计划接受膝关节镜检查的患者被随机分为接受GA组(咪达唑仑、芬太尼、丙泊酚,通过喉罩气道给予N₂O/O₂/地氟烷)或腰丛/坐骨神经阻滞组(PNB;2-氯普鲁卡因)。接受GA的患者还接受了20 mL 0.25%布比卡因关节内注射以控制术后疼痛。PNB组患者在阻滞前给予咪达唑仑(最大4 mg)和阿芬太尼(500 - 750 μg),术中给予丙泊酚30 - 50 μg·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹进行镇静。比较两组的相关围手术期时间、麻醉后监护病房跳过率、疼痛严重程度和并发症发生率。50例患者纳入研究;每组25例患者分别接受GA或PNB。两组的总手术室时间无显著差异(97 ± 37分钟对91 ± 42分钟)。接受PNB的患者中有72%符合跳过麻醉后监护病房第一阶段的标准,而接受GA的患者中只有24%符合该标准(P < 0.002)。接受PNB的患者达到出院标准的时间(准备出院时间)和实际出院时间明显短于接受GA的患者(分别为131 ± 62分钟对205 ± 94分钟和162 ± 71分钟对226 ± 96分钟)。在我们的研究条件下,对于接受门诊膝关节镜检查的患者,3% 2-氯普鲁卡因联合腰丛和坐骨神经阻滞与GA相比,恢复情况更佳。

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