Department of Anesthesia, Richard L. Roudebush, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana2Department of Anesthesia, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.
Department of Surgery, Richard L. Roudebush, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana4Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.
JAMA Surg. 2016 Dec 1;151(12):1108-1114. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2905.
Quality of recovery (directly associated with patient satisfaction) is an important clinical outcome measurement and a surrogate of anesthetic/surgical care quality.
To compare the efficacy of a transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block with dexamethasone sodium phosphate and preperitoneal instillation of local anesthetic (PILA) with dexamethasone vs control on postoperative quality of recovery following a bilateral total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TEP-IHR) (>24 hours). Secondary objectives included efficacy of this technique on postoperative opioid use, nausea and vomiting, and pain scores.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Conducted from November 2013 to August 2015, this randomized, prospective, single-blinded study compared 2 groups (a TAP block and PILA) with a standard anesthetic technique with no regional technique (control) following bilateral TEP-IHR. This study at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Indianapolis, Indiana) included patients ages 18 to 80 years with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of 1 to 3 scheduled for an outpatient bilateral TEP-IHR. Nurses assigning pain scores and administrating opioids for pain and staff anesthesiologists administering the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) questionnaire were blinded.
Patients randomized to receive a TAP block with local anesthetics and dexamethasone, PILA with dexamethasone, or no regional technique (3 groups).
Patient's response to the QoR-40 questionnaire following a TEP-IHR surgery.
The mean (SD) ages in the TAP block (n = 19), PILA (n = 24), and control (n = 23) groups were 58.2 (9.4) years, 62.5 (8.1) years, and 62.9 (7.8) years, respectively. The global QoR-40 scores on postoperative day 1 for the TAP block group (median [interquartile range (IQR)], 178 [173-188]) were comparable with the control group (median [IQR], 174 [150-181]), while the PILA group had better global QoR-40 scores (median [IQR], 184 [175.5-190.75]) (P = .002). The effects of the TAP block and PILA on pain in the postoperative care unit (PACU) (median [IQR], 1 [0-5] and 3.5 [0-6.8], respectively), pain after discharge (median [IQR], 3 [2-5] and 3 [1-5.5], respectively), opiate use after discharge (median [IQR], 6.7 [5-10] and 6.7 [3.3-10], respectively), and incidence of nausea and vomiting in the PACU (4 of 19 [21.1%] and 6 of 24 [25%], respectively) were not significantly different from the control group (median [IQR], 4 [3-6] for pain scores in the PACU; 4 [3-7] for pain scores after discharge; 6.7 [3.3-10] for opioid use after discharge; and 6 of 23 [26.1%] for incidence of nausea/vomiting in the PACU). While there was a significant reduction of opioid use in the PACU in the TAP block group (median [IQR], 0 [0-1.3]) when compared with the control group (median [IQR], 4 [1.3-6.7]) (P = .001), this was not seen in the PILA group (median [IQR], 2 [0-6.4]).
This study demonstrates a better quality of recovery in patients' receiving PILA with dexamethasone compared with control for a TEP-IHR surgery.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02036983.
重要性:术后恢复质量(与患者满意度直接相关)是一项重要的临床结局测量指标,也是麻醉/手术护理质量的替代指标。
目的:比较腹横肌平面(TAP)阻滞联合地塞米松磷酸钠与腹横筋膜前间隙局部麻醉药物(PILA)联合地塞米松与对照组在双侧完全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术(TEP-IHR)后 24 小时以上的术后恢复质量的疗效。次要目标包括该技术在术后阿片类药物使用、恶心呕吐和疼痛评分方面的疗效。
设计、地点和参与者:本随机、前瞻性、单盲研究于 2013 年 11 月至 2015 年 8 月进行,比较了双侧 TEP-IHR 术后采用标准麻醉技术(对照组)与 TAP 阻滞联合地塞米松磷酸钠和 PILA 联合地塞米松的 2 组(TAP 阻滞联合 PILA)。这项在印第安纳州印第安纳波利斯退伍军人事务医疗中心进行的研究纳入了年龄在 18 至 80 岁之间、ASA 身体状况为 1 至 3 级的门诊双侧 TEP-IHR 患者。负责疼痛评分和阿片类药物镇痛的护士以及实施 QoR-40 问卷调查的麻醉医生均为盲法。
干预措施:患者随机分为 TAP 阻滞联合局部麻醉和地塞米松组、PILA 联合地塞米松组和无区域技术组(3 组)。
主要结果和测量指标:TEP-IHR 手术后患者对 QoR-40 问卷的反应。
结果:TAP 阻滞组(n=19)、PILA 组(n=24)和对照组(n=23)的平均(SD)年龄分别为 58.2(9.4)岁、62.5(8.1)岁和 62.9(7.8)岁。TAP 阻滞组术后第 1 天的全球 QoR-40 评分(中位数[四分位数范围(IQR)],178[173-188])与对照组(中位数[IQR],174[150-181])相当,而 PILA 组的全球 QoR-40 评分则更好(中位数[IQR],184[175.5-190.75])(P=0.002)。TAP 阻滞和 PILA 对 PACU(中位数[IQR],1[0-5]和 3.5[0-6.8])、出院后疼痛(中位数[IQR],3[2-5]和 3[1-5.5])、出院后阿片类药物使用(中位数[IQR],6.7[5-10]和 6.7[3.3-10])和 PACU 恶心呕吐发生率(4/19[21.1%]和 6/24[25%])的影响与对照组无显著差异(PACU 疼痛评分中位数[IQR],4[3-6];出院后疼痛评分中位数[IQR],4[3-7];出院后阿片类药物使用中位数[IQR],6.7[3.3-10];PACU 恶心呕吐发生率中位数[IQR],6/23[26.1%])。与对照组相比,TAP 阻滞组 PACU 中阿片类药物使用量显著减少(中位数[IQR],0[0-1.3]),而 PILA 组则无明显变化(中位数[IQR],2[0-6.4])(P=0.001)。
结论和相关性:这项研究表明,在 TEP-IHR 手术后,与对照组相比,PILA 联合地塞米松的患者术后恢复质量更好。
试验注册:clinicaltrials.gov 标识符:NCT02036983。