Suppr超能文献

疝修补术后超声引导下腹股沟区域阻滞与脊髓麻醉用于疼痛控制的比较:一项随机试验

Pain control with ultrasound-guided inguinal field block compared with spinal anesthesia after hernia surgery: a randomized trial.

作者信息

Mokini Zhirajr, Vitale Giovanni, Aletti Gabriele, Sacchi Valentina, Mauri Tommaso, Colombo Valentina, Fumagalli Roberto, Pesenti Antonio

机构信息

Department of Emergency and Intensive Care, San Gerardo University Hospital, Monza, Italy; Study Group on Acute and Chronic Pain, Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI).

Department of Emergency and Intensive Care, San Gerardo University Hospital, Monza, Italy.

出版信息

Surgery. 2015 Feb;157(2):304-11. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.09.002.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Inguinal field block (IFB) is a recommended technique for pain control after inguinal hernia repair but is also underused by surgeons. Currently, there is no decisive evidence on which technique, IFB or spinal anesthesia block (SAB), provides better pain control during the first day after hernia repair. In this study, we compared ultrasound-guided IFB performed by anesthesiologists and SAB for pain control during the first day after hernia repair.

METHODS

We compared static and dynamic pain scores measured with a numerical rating scale in 86 male patients scheduled for elective unilateral inguinal hernia repair with either ultrasound-guided IFB (n = 42) or SAB (n = 44).

RESULTS

Dynamic and static pain at 4 hours (P < .01, r > 0.34, "large effect size"), and dynamic pain the morning after operation (P = .04, r > 0.20, "medium effect size") were less in the field block group compared with the SAB group. Postoperative analgesic consumption was reduced during hospital stay (P = .005, r > 0.34, "large effect size") and for 7 postoperative days in the field block group (P = .03, r > 0.20, "medium effect size").

CONCLUSION

In this study, ultrasound-guided IFB provided lesser dynamic pain scores during the first postoperative day and reduced use of analgesics for 1 week compared with spinal anesthesia after inguinal hernia repair. Our technique could become a substitute performed by anesthesiologists in settings in which IFB is not performed routinely by surgeons.

摘要

背景

腹股沟区域阻滞(IFB)是腹股沟疝修补术后疼痛控制的推荐技术,但外科医生对其使用不足。目前,尚无决定性证据表明哪种技术,即IFB还是脊髓麻醉阻滞(SAB),在疝修补术后第一天能提供更好的疼痛控制。在本研究中,我们比较了麻醉医生实施的超声引导下IFB与SAB用于疝修补术后第一天的疼痛控制情况。

方法

我们用数字评定量表比较了86例计划进行择期单侧腹股沟疝修补术的男性患者的静态和动态疼痛评分,这些患者分别接受超声引导下IFB(n = 42)或SAB(n = 44)。

结果

与SAB组相比,区域阻滞组在术后4小时的动态和静态疼痛(P <.01,r > 0.34,“大效应量”)以及术后次日上午的动态疼痛(P =.04,r > 0.20,“中等效应量”)较轻。区域阻滞组住院期间的术后镇痛药物消耗量减少(P =.005,r > 0.34,“大效应量”),且术后7天内的消耗量也减少(P =.03,r > 0.20,“中等效应量”)。

结论

在本研究中,与腹股沟疝修补术后的脊髓麻醉相比,超声引导下IFB在术后第一天提供的动态疼痛评分更低,且术后1周内的镇痛药使用量减少。我们的技术可成为麻醉医生在外科医生不常规进行IFB的情况下的替代方法。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验