The Philip Leverhulme Equine Hospital, University of Liverpool, Cheshire, UK.
Equine Vet J. 2010 Nov;42(8):721-5. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00080.x. Epub 2010 Aug 19.
Anaesthesia of the maxillary nerve of the horse has been described using several approaches, but sparse data exist to evaluate the accuracy of these methods.
This study compared 2 previously described approaches to the maxillary nerve to assess their relative accuracies.
Thirty severed heads from horse cadavers were arranged to approximate the position of a live horse. Methylene blue (0.25 or 0.1 ml) was injected using a 19 gauge 90 mm spinal needle by one of 2 approaches, the method used being randomly allocated in each instance. Method ANG: angulated needle insertion on the ventral border of the zygomatic process of the temporal bone and directed rostromedially. Method PER: needle inserted perpendicular to the skin surface, ventral to the zygomatic process of the malar bone, level with the temporal canthus of the eye. Accuracy of dye deposition was assessed following dissection. Placement was categorised as 'full hit' (complete nerve coverage or dye deposition centred on nerve), 'partial hit' (partial nerve discolouration but dye not centred on nerve) or 'miss' (no nerve discolouration). Deposition of dye relative to the nerve and whether injection was performed on the left or right side of the head was recorded. A Chi-squared test was performed to examine the relationship between the 2 methods.
Method ANG was performed 31 times, Method PER 28 times. Full hits were 10/31 (32%) vs. 9/28 (32%), partial hits 15/31 (49%) vs. 14/28 (50%) and misses 6/31 (19%) vs. 5/28 (18%) (Methods ANG vs. PER, respectively). RESULTS were not statistically significantly different between the methods. Dye was deposited in the deep facial vein once by each method. Bone was contacted consistently with Method PER and 8/31 times with Method ANG.
Both methods appeared equivalent in terms of accuracy. Aspiration should always precede injection.
已经描述了几种方法对马的上颌神经进行麻醉，但评估这些方法准确性的数据很少。
本研究比较了两种先前描述的上颌神经方法，以评估它们的相对准确性。
将 30 个头骨从马的尸体中取出，以模拟活马的位置。使用 19 号 90 毫米的脊髓针，通过两种方法之一（每次随机分配使用的方法）注射亚甲蓝（0.25 或 0.1ml）。方法 ANG：在颧骨颞骨的腹侧缘插入成角度的针，并向头侧近端方向引导。方法 PER：将针插入颧骨颊骨的腹侧，与眼外角平齐，与皮肤表面垂直。解剖后评估染料沉积的准确性。放置情况分为“完全命中”（完全覆盖神经或染料沉积集中在神经上）、“部分命中”（神经部分变色但染料未集中在神经上）或“错过”（神经无变色）。记录染料相对于神经的沉积情况，以及注射是在头部的左侧还是右侧进行。使用卡方检验检验两种方法之间的关系。
ANG 方法进行了 31 次，PER 方法进行了 28 次。完全命中分别为 10/31（32%）和 9/28（32%），部分命中分别为 15/31（49%）和 14/28（50%），错过分别为 6/31（19%）和 5/28（18%）（ANG 方法和 PER 方法分别）。两种方法之间的结果无统计学差异。两种方法各有一次将染料沉积在深部面静脉中。使用 PER 方法时，骨始终被触及，ANG 方法有 8/31 次触及。
两种方法在准确性方面似乎相同。注射前应始终进行抽吸。
