Suppr超能文献

坐骨神经腰大肌间隙阻滞与坐骨神经股神经三合一阻滞用于膝关节镜检查的比较。

Comparison of sciatic psoas compartment block and sciatic femoral 3-in-1 block for knee arthroscopy.

作者信息

Atim Abdulkadir, Ergin Atilla, Kurt Ercan, Ozdemiroglu Yusuf, Guzeldemir Erdal

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Beytepe Military Hospital, Ankara 06835, Turkey.

出版信息

J Clin Anesth. 2007 Dec;19(8):591-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2007.06.014.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness of two peripheral nerve block techniques combined with sciatic nerve block: sciatic psoas compartment (SPC) and sciatic femoral 3-in-1 (SF 3-in-1) block.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized study.

SETTING

Military medical academy hospital.

PATIENTS

Thirty-six ASA physical status I patients, aged 20 to 33 years, undergoing elective knee arthroscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients having SPC block (n = 19) or SF 3-in-1 block (n = 17) received 40 mL of a mixture of solution containing 15 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine, 15 mL of 2.0% prilocaine, and 10 mL of 0.9% sodium chloride. In both groups, the sciatic nerve was blocked with 20 mL of the same solution. An intravenous bolus injection of fentanyl 0.1 mg was used if patients complained of pain.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

None of the patients in the SPC group experienced pain owing to the applied tourniquet during the operation, whereas 7 patients from the SF 3-in-1 group (41.2 %) reported tourniquet pain. All SF 3-in-1 group patients but only 5 patients (26.3 %) in the SPC group required fentanyl during the operation. In addition, 7 patients in the SF 3-in-1 group required second doses of fentanyl. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the SPC group than in the SF 3-in-1 block group (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both SPC and SF 3-in-1 provided sufficient anesthetic efficacy for knee arthroscopy. However, SPC may be preferable to SF 3-in-1 block owing to better patient satisfaction and less requirement for opioid analgesics.

摘要

研究目的

比较两种外周神经阻滞技术联合坐骨神经阻滞的临床效果:坐骨神经腰大肌间隙阻滞(SPC)和坐骨神经股部三合一阻滞(SF 3-in-1)。

设计

前瞻性随机研究。

地点

军事医学院附属医院。

患者

36例年龄在20至33岁之间、美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)身体状况分级为I级、接受择期膝关节镜检查的患者。

干预措施

接受SPC阻滞的患者(n = 19)或SF 3-in-1阻滞的患者(n = 17)接受40 mL混合溶液,该混合溶液包含15 mL 0.5%布比卡因、15 mL 2.0%丙胺卡因和10 mL 0.9%氯化钠。两组均用20 mL相同溶液阻滞坐骨神经。如果患者主诉疼痛,则静脉推注0.1 mg芬太尼。

测量指标及主要结果

SPC组中无患者在手术期间因使用止血带而出现疼痛,而SF 3-in-1组中有7例患者(41.2%)报告有止血带疼痛。SF 3-in-1组的所有患者以及SPC组中仅5例患者(26.3%)在手术期间需要使用芬太尼。此外,SF 3-in-1组中有7例患者需要追加芬太尼剂量。SPC组患者的满意度显著高于SF 3-in-1阻滞组(P < 0.0001)。

结论

SPC和SF 3-in-1均为膝关节镜检查提供了足够的麻醉效果。然而,由于患者满意度更高且对阿片类镇痛药的需求更少,SPC可能比SF 3-in-1阻滞更具优势。

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