Suppr超能文献

局部麻醉下的膝关节镜检查是一种对患者友好的技术吗?一项前瞻性对照试验。

Is knee arthroscopy under local anaesthetic a patient-friendly technique? A prospective controlled trial.

作者信息

Barroso Rosa Sergio, James Dugal, Matthews Brent David

机构信息

Bendigo Orthopaedic and Sport Medicine Clinic, Bendigo, VIC, Australia.

Orthopaedic Research Institute of Queensland (ORIQL), Townsville, QLD , Australia.

出版信息

Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016 Aug;26(6):633-8. doi: 10.1007/s00590-016-1799-2. Epub 2016 Jun 21.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To determine that when the patient chooses their intervention, whether there is any difference in duration of surgery, effectiveness, patient satisfaction and recovery time between two methods of anaesthesia, local anaesthetic (LA) and general anaesthesia (GA) in knee arthroscopy (KA).

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were medically fit, adults, undergoing unilateral KA, in a native knee as a day case. Exclusion criteria were requirement for ligament reconstruction or meniscal repair, pre-existing regional sensory impairment or active psychiatric condition. A prospective comparator controlled trial was conducted. The experimental group received local anaesthetic into the joint and no tourniquet. This was compared to a standard treatment, using GA with tourniquet. The LA group received 40 ml of anaesthetic consisting of 20 ml 0.5 % bupivacaine with adrenaline and 20 ml of 1 % lignocaine with adrenaline. Pre- and postoperative visual analogue score were completed, and patient's satisfaction was assessed using a scale of one to five. Operative and recovery time was recorded.

RESULTS

There was a significant decrease in recovery time for the LA group, 14 min 55 s, compared to 72 min 25 s (p = 0.004). Pain levels in the LA group were significantly decreased compared to the GA group. No failures of LA resulting in conversion to GA; no difference in patient satisfaction between the two groups 4.88/5 in the GA group and 4.81/5 in the LA group. 48 patients joined the LA group, and 34 patients joined the GA group. Both groups displayed similar demographic variables and underwent similar intraarticular interventions.

CONCLUSION

When patients undergoing KA choose their method of anaesthesia, LA is a reliable option. Use of LA results in decreased recovery time and postoperative pain, with similar levels of patient satisfaction when compared to GA.

摘要

目的

确定在膝关节镜检查(KA)中,当患者选择其干预措施时,局部麻醉(LA)和全身麻醉(GA)这两种麻醉方法在手术持续时间、有效性、患者满意度和恢复时间方面是否存在差异。

方法

纳入标准为身体状况适合、成年、接受单侧膝关节镜检查、初次膝关节且为日间手术患者。排除标准为需要韧带重建或半月板修复、既往存在局部感觉障碍或活动性精神疾病。进行了一项前瞻性对照试验。实验组接受关节内局部麻醉且不使用止血带。将其与使用全身麻醉并使用止血带的标准治疗进行比较。局部麻醉组接受40毫升麻醉剂,其中包括20毫升含肾上腺素的0.5%布比卡因和20毫升含肾上腺素的1%利多卡因。完成术前和术后视觉模拟评分,并使用1至5分的量表评估患者满意度。记录手术和恢复时间。

结果

局部麻醉组的恢复时间显著缩短,为14分55秒,而全身麻醉组为72分25秒(p = 0.004)。与全身麻醉组相比,局部麻醉组的疼痛水平显著降低。没有因局部麻醉失败而转为全身麻醉的情况;两组患者满意度无差异,全身麻醉组为4.88/5,局部麻醉组为4.81/5。48例患者加入局部麻醉组,34例患者加入全身麻醉组。两组显示出相似的人口统计学变量,并接受了相似的关节内干预。

结论

当接受膝关节镜检查的患者选择其麻醉方法时,局部麻醉是一种可靠的选择。与全身麻醉相比,使用局部麻醉可缩短恢复时间并减轻术后疼痛,患者满意度水平相似。

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