Gille J, Gille M, Gahr R, Wiedemann B
Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Intensiv- und Schmerztherapie, Städt Klinikum St Georg, Leipzig, Germany. Jochen.Gille@sankt georg.de
Anaesthesist. 2006 Apr;55(4):414-22. doi: 10.1007/s00101-005-0949-4.
The aim of this study was to compare safety and efficacy of catheter-mediated femoral nerve block analgesia with systemic pain therapy in patients with proximal femoral fractures in the pre-operative and post-operative setting using a protocol for coordinating pain management.
In a prospective randomised trial of patients attending the emergency department, 100 individuals were selected with a clinically diagnosed proximal femoral fracture. Patients were divided into two equal groups A and B. Group A (n=50) received a catheter-mediated femoral nerve block with 1% prilocaine (40 ml) and post-operatively 0.2% ropivacaine (30 ml) 6 hourly. Group B (n=50) initially received intravenous metamizol (1 g) and a fixed combination of oral tilidine (100 mg) + naloxone (8 mg). Patients aged 90 years or more received a reduced dose (tilidine 75 mg + naloxone 6 mg). In the post-operative period regular oral ibuprofen (400 mg, 8 hourly) in addition to oral tilidine (50 mg) + naloxone (4 mg) was given as required for break through pain. Pain intensity was measured using a verbal rating scale (VRS) from 1 to 5: pain free (=1), mild pain (=2), moderate pain (=3), severe pain (=4), excruciating pain (=5). Pain scores were recorded at rest (R), during passive anteflection (30 degrees) of the hip (PA) on arrival and at 15 and 30 min after initial administration of analgesia. Thereafter, recordings were made 4 times a day up to the third post-operative day.
Pain scores were comparable for both groups on admission (VRS in R 2.50 vs. 2.46; VRS during PA 4.30 vs. 4.34). Significant pain relief was achieved in both groups following initial administration of analgesia, but the total pain scores in group A were significantly lower than in group B (VRS in R 1.22 vs. 1.58, p<0.01 and VRS during PA 2.66 vs. 3.26; p<0.001). No difference was noted between the two groups during the first 3 post-operative days. No severe complications occurred as a result of analgesia, however, the catheter was dislodged in 20% of patients in group A resulting in the need for systemically administered analgesia.
All patients presenting with proximal femoral fractures should receive adequate analgesia within the emergency department even prior to radiographic imaging. Femoral nerve block should be considered as the method of choice. The insertion of a femoral nerve block catheter has the dual advantage of early analgesia permitting repeated clinical examination in addition to continued post-operative pain management. The cumbersome logistics inherent in this technique within the clinical setting limits its practical application. An initial single-shot regional nerve block followed by a systemic post-operative analgesia protocol was considered an appropriate alternative. The execution of safe, consistent and appropriate regional nerve block anaesthesia is reliant on formal guidelines and protocols as agreed by the multidisciplinary teams involved with patient-directed pain management and good clinical practice.
本研究旨在采用疼痛管理协调方案,比较术前及术后近端股骨骨折患者经导管介导的股神经阻滞镇痛与全身疼痛治疗的安全性和有效性。
在一项针对急诊科患者的前瞻性随机试验中,选取100例临床诊断为近端股骨骨折的患者。患者被分为A、B两组,每组50例。A组(n = 50)接受经导管介导的股神经阻滞,使用1%丙胺卡因(40 ml),术后每6小时使用0.2%罗哌卡因(30 ml)。B组(n = 50)最初接受静脉注射安乃近(1 g)以及口服替利定(100 mg)与纳洛酮(8 mg)的固定组合。90岁及以上患者接受减量(替利定75 mg + 纳洛酮6 mg)。术后,根据需要给予常规口服布洛芬(400 mg,每8小时一次),以及口服替利定(50 mg)+纳洛酮(4 mg)以缓解爆发性疼痛。使用1至5分的语言评定量表(VRS)测量疼痛强度:无痛(=1)、轻度疼痛(=2)、中度疼痛(=3)、重度疼痛(=4)、剧痛(=5)。在静息状态(R)、到达时髋关节被动前屈30度(PA)期间以及首次给予镇痛药物后15分钟和30分钟记录疼痛评分。此后,每天记录4次,直至术后第三天。
两组入院时疼痛评分相当(静息状态下VRS分别为2.50和2.46;PA期间VRS分别为4.30和4.34)。两组在首次给予镇痛药物后均实现了显著的疼痛缓解,但A组的总疼痛评分显著低于B组(静息状态下VRS分别为1.22和1.58,p<0.01;PA期间VRS分别为2.66和3.26;p<0.001)。术后前三天两组之间未观察到差异。镇痛未导致严重并发症,然而,A组20%的患者导管移位,导致需要进行全身镇痛。
所有近端股骨骨折患者即使在进行影像学检查之前,也应在急诊科接受充分的镇痛治疗。应考虑将股神经阻滞作为首选方法。插入股神经阻滞导管具有双重优势,即早期镇痛,除了持续的术后疼痛管理外,还允许进行重复的临床检查。该技术在临床环境中固有的繁琐后勤工作限制了其实际应用。最初单次注射区域神经阻滞,随后采用全身术后镇痛方案被认为是一种合适的替代方法。安全、一致且适当的区域神经阻滞麻醉的实施依赖于参与以患者为导向的疼痛管理的多学科团队商定的正式指南和方案以及良好的临床实践。