Ivanec Zeljko, Mazul-Sunkol Branka, Lovricević Ivo, Sonicki Zdenko, Gvozdenović Aleksandra, Klican Katarina, Krolo Helena, Halapir Tomislav, Novotny Zdenko
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital, Zagreb, Croatia.
Acta Clin Croat. 2008 Jun;47(2):81-6.
It is not clear if any technique of regional anesthesia for carotid endarterectomy has an advantage over another. Therefore, we analyzed analgesic efficacy side effects and complication rate in patients undergoing carotid surgery either under combined (deep and superficial) or superficial cervical block alone. Data on 324 patients that received either combined (n = 107) or superficial (n = 216) cervical block were prospectively analyzed. Data were collected on the intraoperative Verbal Analog Score (VAS), arterial pressure and heart rate. Analgesic efficacy was additionally assessed by the dose of supplemental 1% lidocaine and fentanyl and time before the first analgesic was administered at Intensive Care Unit. During surgery, VAS was slightly higher in the superficial group (median 0.6, range 0-3.9) than in the combined group (median 0.4, range 0-2.4; p < 0.001). The median supplemental lidocaine dose during the operation was higher in the superficial block group (2.4 mg/kg, range 1.1-3.5) than in the combined group (2.1, range 0.5-3.4 mg/kg; p < 0.001). Supplemental fentanyl was also higher in the superficial block group. There were no between-group differences in the time before the first postoperative analgesic, postoperative VAS and block-related complication rate. Accordingly combined block provided a slightly better analgesia during the surgery which was probably clinically irrelevant. There was no difference in postoperative analgesia and hemodynamic stability. So far, this is the largest prospective study in which superficial cervical block was found to be as efficacious as combined block which is associated with a considerably higher risk of complications.
目前尚不清楚用于颈动脉内膜切除术的任何区域麻醉技术是否比其他技术更具优势。因此,我们分析了接受联合(深部和浅部)或仅接受浅部颈丛阻滞的颈动脉手术患者的镇痛效果、副作用和并发症发生率。对324例接受联合(n = 107)或浅部(n = 216)颈丛阻滞的患者数据进行了前瞻性分析。收集了术中视觉模拟评分(VAS)、动脉压和心率的数据。还通过补充1%利多卡因和芬太尼的剂量以及在重症监护病房首次给予镇痛剂之前的时间来评估镇痛效果。手术期间,浅部组的VAS略高于联合组(中位数0.6,范围0 - 3.9),联合组为(中位数0.4,范围0 - 2.4;p < 0.001)。浅部阻滞组术中补充利多卡因的中位数剂量高于联合组(2.4 mg/kg,范围1.1 - 3.5),联合组为(2.1,范围0.5 - 3.4 mg/kg;p < 0.001)。浅部阻滞组补充芬太尼的量也更高。术后首次镇痛前的时间、术后VAS和与阻滞相关的并发症发生率在两组之间没有差异。因此,联合阻滞在手术期间提供了稍好的镇痛效果,但这可能在临床上并不相关。术后镇痛和血流动力学稳定性没有差异。到目前为止,这是最大的前瞻性研究,其中发现浅部颈丛阻滞与联合阻滞效果相同,但联合阻滞并发症风险要高得多。