Kluba Torsten, Hofmann Fabian, Bredanger Sabine, Blumenstock Gunnar, Niemeyer Thomas
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen;
Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2010 Mar 20;2(1):e9. doi: 10.4081/or.2010.e9.
This prospective study aimed to compare the efficacy of epidural (EDA) versus intravenous (PCA) application of analgesics after lumbar fusion. Fifty-two patients scheduled for elective posterior instrumented lumbar fusion were randomized into two groups. EDA patients received an epidural catheter intraoperatively, and administration of ropivacain and sulfentanil was started after a normal postoperative wake-up test in the recovery room area. PCA patients received intravenous opioids in the post-operative period. Differences between EDA and PCA groups in terms of patient satisfaction with respect to pain relief were not significant. Nevertheless, EDA patients reported less pain on the third day after surgery. There were significantly more side effects in the EDA group, including complete reversible loss of sensory function and motor weakness. There were no major side effects, such as infection or persisting neurological deficits, in either group. The routine use of epidural anesthesia for lumbar spine surgery has too many risks and offers very little advantage over PCA.
这项前瞻性研究旨在比较腰椎融合术后硬膜外(EDA)与静脉(PCA)应用镇痛药的疗效。52例计划进行择期后路器械辅助腰椎融合术的患者被随机分为两组。EDA组患者术中置入硬膜外导管,在恢复室区域术后苏醒测试正常后开始给予罗哌卡因和舒芬太尼。PCA组患者在术后接受静脉注射阿片类药物。EDA组和PCA组在患者对疼痛缓解的满意度方面差异不显著。然而,EDA组患者在术后第三天报告的疼痛较轻。EDA组的副作用明显更多,包括感觉功能完全可逆性丧失和运动无力。两组均未出现感染或持续性神经功能缺损等严重副作用。腰椎手术常规使用硬膜外麻醉风险太多,与PCA相比优势甚微。