Blomberg R G, Jaanivald A, Walther S
Department of Anaesthesia, Central Hospital, Norrköping, Sweden.
Anaesthesia. 1989 Sep;44(9):742-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1989.tb09260.x.
Forty-nine patients, scheduled for transurethral resection of the prostate or a bladder neoplasm on 50 occasions, were studied. The patients were randomly allocated to one of the two methods of puncture, midline or paramedian. Technical difficulties and the occurrence of complications were recorded. The extent of sensory and motor blockade was also compared. The paramedian approach was associated with a lower frequency of technical problems compared to the midline approach. Statistically significant differences were demonstrated between the two techniques for the following factors: repeated attempts at needle insertion; difficulty in identification of the epidural space; resistance to introduction of the catheter; resistance to injection through the epidural catheter; and the production of paraesthesiae (nine patients in the midline group compared to only one patient in the paramedian group, p less than 0.01). The catheter entered a vessel at first in two patients in each group. No significant differences were demonstrated between the groups in the extent of sensory and motor blockade. The study supports the view that the paramedian approach has technical advantages over the midline approach for lumbar epidural analgesia with catheter technique.
对50例计划行经尿道前列腺切除术或膀胱肿瘤切除术的49例患者进行了研究。患者被随机分配至两种穿刺方法之一,即中线穿刺或旁正中穿刺。记录技术难度和并发症的发生情况。同时比较感觉和运动阻滞的程度。与中线入路相比,旁正中入路的技术问题发生率较低。在以下因素方面,两种技术之间存在统计学显著差异:重复进针尝试;硬膜外腔识别困难;导管置入阻力;通过硬膜外导管注射阻力;以及感觉异常的发生(中线组有9例患者,而旁正中组仅有1例患者,p<0.01)。每组各有2例患者导管最初进入血管。两组在感觉和运动阻滞程度方面无显著差异。该研究支持以下观点:在采用导管技术进行腰段硬膜外镇痛时,旁正中入路比中线入路具有技术优势。