Ali Monaz Abdulrahman, Abdellatif Ashraf Abualhasan
Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Menoufia, Egypt.
Saudi J Anaesth. 2017 Jan-Mar;11(1):32-36. doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.197368.
Acoustic puncture assist device (APAD™) is a pressure measurement combined with a related acoustic signal that has been successfully used to facilitate epidural punctures. The principal of loss of resistance (LOR) is similar when performing paravertebral block (PVB). We investigated the usefulness of APAD™ by comparing it with the conventional LOR techniques for identifying paravertebral space (PVS).
A total of 100 women who were scheduled for elective breast surgery under general anesthesia with PVB were randomized into two equal groups. The first group (APAD group) was scheduled for PVB using APAD™. The second group (C group) was scheduled for PVB using conventional LOR technique. We recorded the success rate assessed by clinical and ultrasound findings, the time required to identify the PVS, the depth of the PVS and the number of attempts. The attending anesthesiologist was also questioned about the usefulness of the acoustic signal for detection of the PVS.
The incidence of successful PVB was (49) in APAD group compared to (42) in C group < 0.05. The time required to do PVB was significantly shorter in APAD group than in C group (3.5 ± 1.35 vs. 4.1 ± 1.42) minutes. Two patients in APAD group needed two or more attempts compared to four patients in C group. The attending anesthesiologist found the acoustic signal valuable in all patients in APAD group.
Using APAD™ compared to the conventional LOR technique showed a lower failure rate and a shorter time to identify the PVS.
声学穿刺辅助装置(APAD™)是一种将压力测量与相关声学信号相结合的装置,已成功用于辅助硬膜外穿刺。在进行椎旁阻滞(PVB)时,阻力消失(LOR)原理与之相似。我们通过将APAD™与传统的LOR技术进行比较,研究其在识别椎旁间隙(PVS)方面的实用性。
总共100例计划在全身麻醉下行择期乳腺手术并接受PVB的女性被随机分为两组,每组人数相等。第一组(APAD组)计划使用APAD™进行PVB,第二组(C组)计划使用传统LOR技术进行PVB。我们记录了根据临床和超声检查结果评估的成功率、识别PVS所需的时间、PVS的深度以及穿刺尝试次数。同时,还询问了主治麻醉医生关于声学信号在检测PVS方面的实用性。
APAD组PVB成功发生率为49例,而C组为42例,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。APAD组进行PVB所需时间明显短于C组(3.5±1.35分钟 vs. 4.1±1.42分钟)。APAD组有2例患者需要进行两次或更多次尝试,而C组有4例。主治麻醉医生发现APAD组所有患者的声学信号都很有价值。
与传统LOR技术相比,使用APAD™显示出更低的失败率和更短的PVS识别时间。