Yassin Hany Mahmoud, Abd Elmoneim Ahmed Tohamy, El Moutaz Hatem
Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt.
Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, Benha University, Benha, Egypt.
Anesth Pain Med. 2017 Jun 10;7(3):e14244. doi: 10.5812/aapm.14244. eCollection 2017 Jun.
Ultrasound-guided rectus sheath blockade has been described to provide analgesia for midline abdominal incisions. We aimed to compare thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) and rectus sheath analgesia (RSA) with respect to safety and efficacy.
Sixty patients who underwent elective laparotomies through a midline incision were assigned randomly to receive either continuous TEA (TEA group, n = 31) or intermittent RSA (RSA group, n = 29). The number of patients who required analgesia, the time to first request analgesia, the interval and the cumulative morphine doses consumption during 72 hours postoperatively, and pain intensity using visual analog score (VAS) at rest and upon coughing were reported in addition to any side effects related to both techniques or administered drugs.
While 17 (54.84 %) patients were in the TEA group, 25 (86.21%) patients in the RSA group required analgesia postoperatively, P = 0.008. Cumulative morphine consumed during the early 72 hours postoperatively median (interquartile range) = 33 mg (27 - 39 mg), 95% confidence interval (28.63 - 37.37 mg) for the TEA group. While in the RSA group, it was 51 mg (45 - 57 mg), 95% CI (47.4 - 54.6 mg), P < 0.001. The time for the first request of morphine was 256.77 ± 73.45 minutes in the TEA group versus 208.82 ± 64.65 min in the RSA group, P = 0.031. VAS at rest and cough were comparable in both groups at all time points of assessment, P > 0.05. The time to the ambulation was significantly shorter in the RSA group (38.47 ± 12.34 hours) as compared to the TEA group (45.89 ± 8.72 hours), P = 0.009. Sedation scores were significantly higher in the RSA group, only at 12 hours and 24 hours postoperatively than in TEA group, with P = 0.041 and 0.013, respectively. The incidence of other morphine-related side effects, time to pass flatus, and patients satisfaction scores were comparable between both groups.
Continuous TEA had better opioid sparing effects markedly during the early 72 hours postoperatively than that of intermittent RSA with catheters inserted under real-time ultrasound guidance, both had comparable safety perspectives, and RSA had the advantage of early ambulation. RSA could be used as an effective alternative when TEA could not be employed in patients undergoing laparotomies with an extended midline incision, especially after the first postoperative day.
超声引导下的腹直肌鞘阻滞已被描述可用于为腹部正中切口提供镇痛。我们旨在比较胸段硬膜外镇痛(TEA)和腹直肌鞘镇痛(RSA)的安全性和有效性。
60例接受经正中切口择期剖腹手术的患者被随机分配接受持续TEA(TEA组,n = 31)或间断RSA(RSA组,n = 29)。除了报告与两种技术或所用药物相关的任何副作用外,还报告了需要镇痛的患者数量、首次要求镇痛的时间、术后72小时内的间隔时间和累积吗啡剂量消耗,以及静息和咳嗽时使用视觉模拟评分(VAS)评估的疼痛强度。
TEA组有17例(54.84%)患者,RSA组有25例(86.21%)患者术后需要镇痛,P = 0.008。术后早期72小时内TEA组累积吗啡消耗量中位数(四分位间距)= 33 mg(27 - 39 mg),95%置信区间(28.63 - 37.37 mg)。而RSA组为51 mg(45 - 57 mg),95%CI(47.4 - 54.6 mg),P < 0.001。TEA组首次要求使用吗啡的时间为256.77 ± 73.45分钟,而RSA组为208.82 ± 64.65分钟,P = 0.031。在所有评估时间点,两组静息和咳嗽时的VAS相当,P > 0.05。RSA组的下床活动时间(38.47 ± 12.34小时)明显短于TEA组(45.89 ± 8.72小时),P = 0.009。RSA组的镇静评分仅在术后12小时和24小时显著高于TEA组,P分别为0.041和0.013。两组其他与吗啡相关的副作用发生率、排气时间和患者满意度评分相当。
术后早期72小时内,持续TEA比实时超声引导下插入导管的间断RSA具有更好的阿片类药物节省效果,两者安全性相当,且RSA具有早期下床活动的优势。对于接受延长正中切口剖腹手术的患者,尤其是术后第一天之后,如果不能采用TEA,RSA可作为一种有效的替代方法。