Suppr超能文献

[全膝关节置换术中连续收肌管阻滞与股神经阻滞的临床疗效比较]

[Comparision for clinical efficiency of continuous adductor canal block and femoral nerve block in total knee arthroplasty].

作者信息

Zhao M W, Wang N, Zeng L, Li M, Zhao Z K, Zhang H, Tian H

机构信息

Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Department of Anesthesiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

出版信息

Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2017 Feb 18;49(1):142-7.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the pain control efficiency of continuous adductor canal block (ACB) and femoral nerve block (FNB) in total knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

From April to September 2016, patients with severe knee osteoarthritis undergoing primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were prospectively observed, and all the patients were randomized received ultrasound-guided continuous ACB or FNB after surgery. Numeric pain rating scales(NPRS)pain scores in rest and activity 2, 6, 12, 24 and 48 h after surgery were collected, and the preoperative and postoperative quadriceps strength at 24 and 48 h were analyzed. Opioids consumption and anesthesia related adverse effects were also recorded.

RESULTS

In the study, 40 patients were enrolled, with 20 patients in each group, male:female=7:33, the age: (63.8±10.1) years, and the body mass index (BMI): (28.5±3.5) kg/m(2).The general conditions were comparable between the two groups. Though the rest pain 2 h after surgery [ACB=0.0(0,6), FNB=3.0(0,5), P=0.004] and activity pain 12 h post operation [ACB=3.0(3,0), FNB=5.5(0,10), P=0.004] were lower in ACB group compared with FNB group, there was no statistical difference in the other pain checking points between the two groups. The quadriceps strength 24 h and 48 h after surgery were(85.3±27.6) N and (80.0±30.1) N in ACB group, (69.0±29.4) N and (64.4±32.0) N in FNB group, both of them were declined by time. The exact data were higher in ACB group, however, there was no statistical difference between the two group by repeated measurements variance analysis(F=2.703, P=0.108).Four patients in ACB group and five in FNB acquired additional use of dolantin once (100 mg/per time) within 24 h. And among them, three patients acquired once dolantin in ACB, two in FNB, from 24 to 48 h postoperation. There were five patients who suffered nausea postoperation in ACB group, and one who reported xerostomia. Four patients in FNB had nausea with vomiting, and three experienced xerostomia. Deep vein thrombosis appeared in 2 patients in FNB group, but no one in ACB group.

CONCLUSION

Continuous ACB is not superior in pain control after TKA compared with FNB, and the quadriceps strength could be reserved more by this method, which performed early benefits in fast rehabilitation.

摘要

目的

比较连续收肌管阻滞(ACB)与股神经阻滞(FNB)在全膝关节置换术中的疼痛控制效果。

方法

前瞻性观察2016年4月至9月行初次单侧全膝关节置换术(TKA)的重度膝关节骨关节炎患者,所有患者术后随机接受超声引导下连续ACB或FNB。收集术后2、6、12、24和48小时静息和活动时的数字疼痛评分量表(NPRS)疼痛评分,并分析术前及术后24和48小时的股四头肌力量。记录阿片类药物消耗量及麻醉相关不良反应。

结果

本研究共纳入40例患者,每组20例,男∶女 = 7∶33,年龄:(63.8±10.1)岁,体重指数(BMI):(28.5±3.5)kg/m²。两组一般情况可比。虽然ACB组术后2小时静息痛[ACB = 0.0(0,6),FNB = 3.0(0,5),P = 0.004]及术后12小时活动痛[ACB = 3.0(3,0),FNB = 5.5(0,10),P = 0.004]低于FNB组,但两组其他疼痛检查点无统计学差异。ACB组术后24小时和48小时股四头肌力量分别为(85.3±27.6)N和(80.0±30.1)N,FNB组分别为(69.0±29.4)N和(64.4±32.0)N,均随时间下降。ACB组确切数据较高,但重复测量方差分析两组间无统计学差异(F = 2.703,P = 0.108)。ACB组4例患者和FNB组5例患者在24小时内额外使用了一次杜冷丁(每次100mg)。其中,ACB组3例患者、FNB组2例患者在术后24至48小时额外使用了一次杜冷丁。ACB组有5例患者术后出现恶心,1例出现口干。FNB组4例患者出现恶心伴呕吐,3例出现口干。FNB组有2例患者出现深静脉血栓形成,ACB组无。

结论

与FNB相比,连续ACB在TKA术后疼痛控制方面并不更优,但该方法能更多保留股四头肌力量,在快速康复方面有早期益处。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验