Suppr超能文献

一项随机、观察者盲法确定用于刺激和非刺激型神经周围导管麻醉腘窝坐骨神经所需局部麻醉药中位有效容积的研究。

A randomized, observer-blinded determination of the median effective volume of local anesthetic required to anesthetize the sciatic nerve in the popliteal fossa for stimulating and nonstimulating perineural catheters.

作者信息

Paqueron Xavier, Narchi Patrick, Mazoit Jean-Xavier, Singelyn François, Bénichou Alain, Macaire Philippe

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Centre Clinical, 2 chemin de Frégeneuil, Soyaux 16800, France.

出版信息

Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009 Jul-Aug;34(4):290-5. doi: 10.1097/aap.0b013e3181ac9be1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Stimulating perineural catheters are developed to overcome technical problems of nonstimulating catheters, but their efficacy remains controversial. However, no volume-response study has compared success rates between stimulating and nonstimulating catheters. This study of stimulating versus nonstimulating catheters compares the minimal effective volume required to successfully block the sciatic nerve in 50% of patients scheduled for unilateral hallux valgus repair.

METHODS

Patients underwent unilateral sciatic nerve block in the popliteal fossa with mepivacaine 1.5%, using either a stimulating (STIM group) or a nonstimulating (NONSTIM group) popliteal catheter. The volume of mepivacaine started at 20 mL and was increased or decreased by increments of 2 mL in subsequent patients, depending on the efficacy of the block in the previous patient, using the technique of up-down sequential allocation described by Dixon (Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1991;15:47-50). Minimum effective volumes of local anesthetic were calculated using the formula of Dixon. Efficacy of block was defined by a complete sensory-motor block in the cutaneous distributions of the sciatic nerve associated with a pain-free surgery.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were included in each group. Median effective volume blocking the sciatic nerve was significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the STIM group (2.7 mL; 95% confidence interval, 0.5-4.9 mL) compared with the NONSTIM group (16.6 mL; 95% confidence interval, 15.2-18.0 mL).

CONCLUSION

Stimulating popliteal catheters dramatically decrease the volume required to block the sciatic nerve in 50% of patients, compared with nonstimulating catheters.

摘要

背景与目的

刺激性神经周围导管旨在克服非刺激性导管的技术问题,但其疗效仍存在争议。然而,尚无容量反应研究比较刺激性导管与非刺激性导管的成功率。本项关于刺激性导管与非刺激性导管的研究比较了计划行单侧拇外翻修复术的50%患者成功阻滞坐骨神经所需的最小有效容量。

方法

患者在腘窝行单侧坐骨神经阻滞,使用1.5%的甲哌卡因,采用刺激性腘窝导管(刺激组)或非刺激性腘窝导管(非刺激组)。甲哌卡因的容量起始为20 mL,随后根据前一位患者的阻滞效果,按照Dixon描述的上下顺序分配技术(《神经科学与生物行为评论》。1991年;15:47 - 50),以2 mL的增量增加或减少。使用Dixon公式计算局部麻醉药的最小有效容量。阻滞效果定义为坐骨神经皮区完全感觉运动阻滞且手术无痛。

结果

每组纳入24例患者。与非刺激组(16.6 mL;95%置信区间,15.2 - 18.0 mL)相比,刺激组阻滞坐骨神经的中位有效容量显著更低(P < 0.05)(2.7 mL;95%置信区间,0.5 - 4.9 mL)。

结论

与非刺激性导管相比,刺激性腘窝导管可显著降低50%患者阻滞坐骨神经所需的容量。

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